Outcomes of a Community Engagement and Information Gathering Program to Support Telephone-Based COVID-19 Contact Tracing: Descriptive Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Contact tracing is an important public health tool for curbing the spread of infectious diseases. Effective and efficient contact tracing involves the rapid identification of individuals with infection and their exposed contacts and ensuring their isolation or quarantine, respectively. Manual contact tracing via telephone call and digital proximity app technology have been key strategies in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. However, many people are not reached for COVID-19 contact tracing due to missing telephone numbers or nonresponse to telephone calls. The New York City COVID-19 Trace program augmented the efforts of telephone-based contact tracers with information gatherers (IGs) to search and obtain telephone numbers or residential addresses, and community engagement specialists (CESs) made home visits to individuals that were not contacted via telephone calls. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of information gathering and home visits to the yields of COVID-19 contact tracing in New York City. METHODS: IGs looked for phone numbers or addresses when records were missing phone numbers to locate case-patients or contacts. CESs made home visits to case-patients and contacts with no phone numbers or those who were not reached by telephone-based tracers. Contact tracing management software was used to triage and queue assignments for the telephone-based tracers, IGs, and CESs. We measured the outcomes of contact tracing-related tasks performed by the IGs and CESs from July 2020 to June 2021. RESULTS: Of 659,484 cases and 861,566 contact records in the Trace system, 28% (185,485) of cases and 35% (303,550) of contacts were referred to IGs. IGs obtained new phone numbers for 33% (61,804) of case-patients and 11% (31,951) of contacts; 50% (31,019) of the case-patients and 46% (14,604) of the contacts with new phone numbers completed interviews; 25% (167,815) of case-patients and 8% (72,437) of contacts were referred to CESs. CESs attempted 80% (132,781) of case and 69% (49,846) of contact investigations, of which 47% (62,733) and 50% (25,015) respectively, completed interviews. An additional 12,192 contacts were identified following IG investigations and 13,507 following CES interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Gathering new or missing locating information and making home visits increased the number of case-patients and contacts interviewed for contact tracing and resulted in additional contacts. When possible, contact tracing programs should add information gathering and home visiting strategies to increase COVID-19 contact tracing coverage and yields as well as promote equity in the delivery of this public health intervention.

Community-Based Workforce for COVID-19 Contact Tracing and Prevention Activities in New York City, July-December 2020.

OBJECTIVES: High rates of hospitalization and death disproportionately affected Black, Latino, and Asian residents of New York City at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. To suppress COVID-19 transmission, New York City implemented a workforce of community engagement specialists (CESs) to conduct home-based contact tracing when telephone numbers were lacking or telephone-based efforts were unsuccessful and to disseminate COVID-19 information and sanitary supplies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe the recruitment, training, and deployment of a multilingual CES workforce with diverse sociodemographic backgrounds during July-December 2020 in New York City. We developed standard operating procedures for infection control and safety measures, procured supplies and means of transportation, and developed protocols and algorithms to efficiently distribute workload. RESULTS: From July through December 2020, 519 CESs were trained to conduct in-person contact tracing and activities in community settings, including homes, schools, and businesses, where they disseminated educational materials, face masks, hand sanitizer, and home-based specimen collection kits. During the study period, 94 704 records of people with COVID-19 and 61 246 contacts not reached by telephone-based contact tracers were referred to CESs. CESs attempted home visits or telephone calls with 84 230 people with COVID-19 and 49 303 contacts, reaching approximately 55 592 (66%) and 35 005 (71%), respectively. Other CES activities included monitoring recently arrived travelers under quarantine, eliciting contacts at point-of-care testing sites, and advising schools on school-based COVID-19 mitigation strategies. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This diverse CES workforce allowed for safe, in-person implementation of contact tracing and other prevention services for individuals and communities impacted by COVID-19. This approach prioritized equitable delivery of community-based support services and resources.