SARS-CoV-2 Screening Testing Program for Safe In-person Learning in K-12 Schools.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening testing is a recommended mitigation strategy for schools, although few descriptions of program implementation are available. METHODS: Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) students and staff practicing universal masking during the delta and omicron variant waves from 5 schools in Durham, North Carolina and 8 in Kansas City, Missouri participated; Durham's program was structured as a public health initiative facilitated by school staff, and Kansas City's as a research study facilitated by a research team. Tests included school-based rapid antigen or polymerase chain reaction testing, at-home rapid antigen testing, and off-site nucleic acid amplification testing. RESULTS: We performed nearly 5,700 screening tests on more than 1,600 K-12 school students and staff members. The total cost for the Durham testing program in 5 public charter K-12 schools, each with 500-1000 students, was $246,587 and approximately 752 hours per semester; cost per test was $70 and cost per positive result was $7,076. The total cost for the Kansas City program in 8 public K-12 schools was $292,591 and required approximately 537 hours in personnel time for school-based testing; cost per test was $132 and cost per positive result was $4,818. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates were generally lower (0-16.16%) than rates in the community (2.7-36.47%) throughout all testing weeks. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Voluntary screening testing programs in K-12 schools are costly and rarely detect asymptomatic positive persons, particularly in universally masked settings.

Urban Classification, Not COVID-19 Community Rates, Was Associated With Modes of Learning in US K-12 Schools?

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with the decision to provide in-person, hybrid, and remote learning in kindergarten through 12th grade school districts during the 2020-2021 school year. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study evaluating school district mode of learning and community coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) incidence and percentage positivity rates at 3 time points during the pandemic: (1) September 15, 2020 (the beginning of the school year, before Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance); (2) November 15, 2020 (midsemester after the release of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and an increase of COVID-19 cases); and (3) January 15, 2021 (start of the second semester and peak COVID-19 rates). Five states were included in the analysis: Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The primary outcome was mode of learning in elementary, middle, and high schools during 3 time points. The measures included community COVID-19 incidence and percentage positivity rates, school and student demographics, and county size classification of school location. RESULTS: No relationship between mode of learning and community COVID-19 rates was observed. County urban classification of school location was associated with mode of learning with school districts in nonmetropolitan and small metropolitan counties more likely to be in-person. CONCLUSIONS: Community COVID-19 rates did not appear to influence the decision of when to provide in-person learning. Further understanding of factors driving the decisions to bring children back into the classroom are needed. Standardizing policies on how schools apply national guidance to local decision-making may decrease disparities in emergent crises.

Building a National Framework to Pair Scientists and Schools During a Global Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced the suspension of in-person education in schools serving students in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) across the United States. As time passed, teachers, students, and parents struggled with remote education. With limited guidance at the federal level, physicians and school leaders across the country collaborated to develop local solutions for schools. This article describes the lessons learned from the development of 4 academic-community partnerships and collaboration among these partnerships to provide national leadership on managing COVID-19 mitigation in the K-12 environment. In addition, we describe a pathway forward for using academic-community partnerships to improve child health.

Adherence to antimicrobial agent recommendations and utilization during drug shortages.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: Antimicrobial shortages occur frequently, but the impact on antimicrobial use is not well defined. The study objectives were to characterize utilization of antimicrobial agents with established restrictions during a medication shortage, assess utilization of shortage antimicrobials following shortage resolution, and examine use of recommended alternative antimicrobials during the shortage period. METHODS: Five antimicrobials were restricted due to shortages from 2015 through 2020. Chart review of inpatients receiving a shortage medication during each restriction period was performed to determine factors influencing adherence to established restriction criteria. To assess antimicrobial utilization during shortages and following shortage resolution, days of therapy per 1,000 patient days were analyzed for each shortage and alternative antimicrobial. RESULTS: Across 266 patients receiving shortage antimicrobials, antimicrobial use was adherent to restriction criteria for 151 patients (57%). Meropenem, ampicillin/sulbactam, and piperacillin/tazobactam had the greatest adherence. Median duration of therapy was shorter in the nonadherent group than in the adherent group (4 vs 2 days, P < 0.0001). Shortage antimicrobial use was more likely to be nonadherent for indications such as sepsis rule out, surgical prophylaxis, and urinary tract infection. Adherence increased with use of visual cues in the chart (99% vs 94%, P = 0.03). Utilization of shortage agents decreased during shortage and restriction periods. After shortage resolution, utilization exceeded baseline usage for all agents except meropenem and metronidazole, for which usage returned to baseline. Utilization of 1 to 2 recommended alternative agents for each shortage agent significantly increased during the shortage and restriction periods. CONCLUSION: Current strategies for restriction significantly decreased utilization of shortage antimicrobials, but additional opportunities exist. Identifying alternative agents and providing visual cues increased adherence.

School Masking Policies and Secondary SARS-CoV-2 Transmission.

OBJECTIVES: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, masking has been a widely used mitigation practice in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) school districts to limit within-school transmission. Prior studies attempting to quantify the impact of masking have assessed total cases within schools; however, the metric that more optimally defines effectiveness of mitigation practices is within-school transmission, or secondary cases. We estimated the impact of various masking practices on secondary transmission in a cohort of K-12 schools. METHODS: We performed a multistate, prospective, observational, open cohort study from July 26, 2021 to December 13, 2021. Districts reported mitigation practices and weekly infection data. Districts that were able to perform contact tracing and adjudicate primary and secondary infections were eligible for inclusion. To estimate the impact of masking on secondary transmission, we used a quasi-Poisson regression model. RESULTS: A total of 1 112 899 students and 157 069 staff attended 61 K-12 districts across 9 states that met inclusion criteria. The districts reported 40 601 primary and 3085 secondary infections. Six districts had optional masking policies, 9 had partial masking policies, and 46 had universal masking. In unadjusted analysis, districts that optionally masked throughout the study period had 3.6 times the rate of secondary transmission as universally masked districts; and for every 100 community-acquired cases, universally masked districts had 7.3 predicted secondary infections, whereas optionally masked districts had 26.4. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary transmission across the cohort was modest (<10% of total infections) and universal masking was associated with reduced secondary transmission compared with optional masking.

Implementation of School-Based COVID-19 Testing Programs in Underserved Populations.

Evidence suggests that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing in schools can add a layer of protection to reduce the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 and facilitate a safer return to in-person learning. Despite this evidence, implementation of testing in school settings has been challenging initially because of a lack of funding and limited availability of testing, but, as the pandemic has progressed and more funding and resources have been devoted to testing, other implementation challenges have arisen. We describe key implementation barriers and strategies that have been operationalized across 5 projects working to help schools with predominantly underserved populations who have faced significant COVID-19-related health disparities. We leveraged a key framework from the implementation science field to identify the challenges and used a matching tool to align implementation strategies to these challenges. Our findings suggest that the biggest obstacles to COVID-19 testing were the perceived relative advantages versus burden of COVID-19 testing, limited engagement with the target beneficiaries (eg, families, students, staff), and innovation complexity. Common strategies to overcome these challenges included identifying and preparing testing champions, altering incentive and allowance structures, assessing for readiness, and identifying barriers and facilitators. We aim to augment existing implementation guidance for schools by describing common barriers and recommended solutions from the implementation science field. Our results indicate a clear need to provide implementation support to schools to facilitate COVID-19 testing as an added layered mitigation strategy.