ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Testing is critical for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the best sampling method remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), oropharyngeal swab (OPS) or saliva specimen collection has the highest detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. METHODS: We conducted a randomised clinical trial at two COVID-19 outpatient test centres where NPS, OPS and saliva specimens were collected by healthcare workers in different orders for reverse transcriptase PCR testing. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was calculated as the number positive by a specific sampling method divided by the number in which any of the three sampling methods was positive. As secondary outcomes, test-related discomfort was measured with an 11-point numeric scale and cost-effectiveness was calculated. RESULTS: Among 23 102 adults completing the trial, 381 (1.65%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was higher for OPSs, 78.7% (95% CI 74.3 to 82.7), compared with NPSs, 72.7% (95% CI 67.9 to 77.1) (p=0.049) and compared with saliva sampling, 61.9% (95% CI 56.9 to 66.8) (p<0.001). The discomfort score was highest for NPSs, at 5.76 (SD, 2.52), followed by OPSs, at 3.16 (SD 3.16) and saliva samples, at 1.03 (SD 18.8), p<0.001 between all measurements. Saliva specimens were associated with the lowest cost, and the incremental costs per detected SARS-CoV-2 infection for NPSs and OPSs were US$3258 and US$1832, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OPSs were associated with higher SARS-CoV-2 detection and lower test-related discomfort than NPSs for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Saliva sampling had the lowest SARS-CoV-2 detection but was the least costly strategy for mass testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04715607.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: During a health crisis, hospitals must prioritise activities and resources, which can compromise clerkship-based learning. We explored how health crises affect clinical clerkships using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example. METHODS: In a constructivist qualitative study, we conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (i.e. medical students and doctors) from two teaching hospitals and 10 different departments. We used thematic analysis to investigate our data and used stakeholder theory as a sensitising concept. RESULTS: We identified three themes: (1) emotional triggers and reactions; (2) negotiation of legitimacy; and (3) building resilience. Our results suggest that the health crisis accentuated already existing problems in clerkships, such as students' feelings of low legitimacy, constant negotiation of roles, inconsistencies navigating rules and regulations and low levels of active participation. Medical students and doctors adapted to the new organisational demands by developing increased resilience. Students responded by reaching out for guidance and acceptance to remain relevant in the clinical clerkships. Doctors developed a behaviour of closing in and focused on managing themselves and their patients. This created tension between these two stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: A health crisis can critically disrupt the hierarchical structure within the clinical clerkships and exacerbate existing conflicts between stakeholder groups. When medical students are not perceived as legitimate stakeholders in clinical clerkships during a health crisis, their attendance is perceived as unnecessary or even a nuisance. Despite increased student proactiveness and resilience, their roles inevitably shift from being doctors-to-be to students-to-be-managed.