Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(42): e295, 2021 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497009

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To minimize nosocomial infection against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), most hospitals conduct a prescreening process to evaluate the patient or guardian of any symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 or exposure to a COVID-19 patient at entrances of hospital buildings. In our hospital, we have implemented a two-level prescreening process in the outpatient clinic: an initial prescreening process at the entrance of the outpatient clinic (PPEO) and a second prescreening process is repeated in each department. If any symptoms or epidemiological history are identified at the second level, an emergency code is announced through the hospital's address system. The patient is then guided outside through a designated aisle. In this study, we analyze the cases missed in the PPEO that caused the emergency code to be applied. METHODS: All cases reported from March 2020 to April 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. We calculated the incidence of cases missed by the PPEO per 1,000 outpatients and compared the incidence between first-time hospital visitors and those visiting for the second time or more; morning and afternoon office hours; and days of the week. RESULTS: During the study period, the emergency code was applied to 449 cases missed by the PPEO. Among those cases, 20.7% were reported in otorhinolaryngology, followed by 11.6% in gastroenterology, 5.8% in urology, and 5.8% in dermatology. Fever was the most common symptom (59.9%), followed by cough (19.8%). The incidence of cases per 1,000 outpatients was significantly higher among first-time visitors than among those visiting for the second time or more (1.77 [confidence interval (CI), 1.44-2.10] vs. 0.59 [CI, 0.52-0.65], respectively) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Fever was the most common symptom missed by the PPEO, and otorhinolaryngology and gastroenterology most frequently reported missed cases. Cases missed by the PPEO were more likely to occur among first-time visitors than returning visitors. The results obtained from this study can provide insights or recommendations to other healthcare facilities in operating prescreening processes during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cough/etiology , Fever/etiology , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Female , Humans , Incidence , Infection Control , Male , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Young Adult
2.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0258394, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456095

ABSTRACT

Rapid antigen (Ag) tests for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) provide quick results, do not require specialized technical skills or infrastructure, and can be used as a point-of-care method to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The performance of a magnetic force-assisted electrochemical immunoassay-based test, namely the MARK-B COVID-19 Ag test (BBB, Sungnam, Republic of Korea), was evaluated using 170 nasopharyngeal swab specimens and compared to that of RT-PCR and commercial rapid Ag test (STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test, SD Biosensor, Suwon-si, Republic of Korea). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the MARK-B test were 90.0% (95% CI 79.4%-96.2%) and 99.0% (95% CI 95.0%-99.9%), respectively, with a kappa coefficient of 0.908. The correlations between the electrical current values of MARK-B and the Ct values of RT-PCR were -0.898 (E gene, 95% CI -0.938 to -0.834) and -0.914 (RdRp gene, 95% CI -0.948 to -0.860), respectively. The limit of detection of the MARK-B was measured using the viral culture reference samples and found to be 1 x 102 pfu/mL. The magnetic force-assisted electrochemical immunoassay-based Ag test can be used to rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 infections, and the corresponding fully automated portable device can provide easy readability and semi-quantitative results.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Electrochemical Techniques , Magnetic Fields , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , Humans , Immunoassay , Republic of Korea
3.
Annals of Laboratory Medicine ; 41(6):577-587, 2021.
Article in English | CAB Abstracts | ID: covidwho-1408357

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have high clinical utility in managing the pandemic. We compared antibody responses and seroconversion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients using different immunoassays.

4.
Ann Lab Med ; 41(6): 577-587, 2021 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1264321

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have high clinical utility in managing the pandemic. We compared antibody responses and seroconversion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients using different immunoassays. Methods: We evaluated 12 commercial immunoassays, including three automated chemiluminescent immunoassays (Abbott, Roche, and Siemens), three enzyme immunoassays (Bio-Rad, Euroimmun, and Vircell), five lateral flow immunoassays (Boditech Med, SD biosensor, PCL, Sugentech, and Rapigen), and one surrogate neutralizing antibody assay (GenScript) in sequential samples from 49 COVID-19 patients and 10 seroconversion panels. Results: The positive percent agreement (PPA) of assays for a COVID-19 diagnosis ranged from 84.0% to 98.5% for all samples (>14 days after symptom onset), with IgM or IgA assays showing higher PPAs. Seroconversion responses varied across the assay type and disease severity. Assays targeting the spike or receptor-binding domain protein showed a tendency for early seroconversion detection and higher index values in patients with severe disease. Index values from SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody assays (three automated assays, one LFIA, and three EIAs) showed moderate to strong correlations with the neutralizing antibody percentage (r=0.517-0.874), and stronger correlations in patients with severe disease and in assays targeting spike protein. Agreement among the 12 assays was good (74.3%-96.4%) for detecting IgG or total antibodies. Conclusions: Positivity rates and seroconversion of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies vary depending on the assay kits, disease severity, and antigen target. This study contributes to a better understanding of antibody response in symptomatic COVID-19 patients using currently available assays.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Immunoassay , Immunoglobulin A/analysis , Immunoglobulin G/analysis , Immunoglobulin M/analysis , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity , Severity of Illness Index
5.
J Infect Public Health ; 14(4): 454-460, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1056924

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, hospitals have strengthened their guidelines on infection prevention and control (IPC), and a rigorous adherence to these guidelines is crucial. An infection control surveillance-working group (ICS-WG) and infection control coordinators (ICCs) team were created to monitor the IPC practices of the healthcare workers (HCWs) in a regional hospital in Korea. This study analyzed the surveillance results and aimed to identify what IPC practices needed improvement. METHODS: During phase 1 (March to April 2020), the ICS-WG performed random audits, recorded incidences of improper IPC practices, and provided advice to the violators. During phase 2 (April to July), the ICCs inspected the hospital units and proposed practical ideas about IPC. The surveillance and proposals targeted the following practices: patient screening, usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), hand and respiratory hygiene, equipment reprocessing, environmental cleaning, management of medical waste, and social distancing. RESULTS: In phase 1, of the 127 violations observed, most (32.3%) corresponded to hand and respiratory hygiene. In phase 2, the highest proportion of violation per category was observed in the management of medical waste (37.8%); among these, a higher proportion of violation (71.4%) was observed in the collection of medical waste. Of the 106 proposals made by the ICCs, the most addressed practice was patient screening (28.3%). No case of nosocomial infection was reported during the study period. CONCLUSION: Adherence to proper hand and respiratory hygiene was inadequate at the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results indicate that more attention and further training are needed for the management of medical waste, particularly medical waste collection, and that continuous upgrading of the strategies for patient screening is essential. These results will be useful in helping other healthcare facilities to establish their IPC strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel , Infection Control , Clinical Audit , Hand Hygiene , Humans , Pandemics , Republic of Korea
6.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0237692, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-717607

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Our hospital experienced the first healthcare-associated COVID-19 outbreak in Seoul at the time the first COVID-19 cases were confirmed in Korea. The first confirmed COVID-19 patient was a hospital personnel who was in charge of transferring patients inside our hospital. To contain the virus spread, we shutdown our hospital, and tested all inpatients, medical staff members, and employees. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the results of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing according to the contact history, occupation, and presence of respiratory symptoms. Closed-circuit television (CCTV) was reviewed in the presence of an epidemiologist to identify individuals who came into contact with confirmed COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: A total of 3,091 respiratory samples from 2,924 individuals were obtained. Among 2,924 individuals, two inpatients, and one caregiver tested positive (positivity rate, 0.1%). Although all confirmed cases were linked to a general ward designated for pulmonology patients, no medical staff members, medical support personnel, or employees working at the same ward were infected. Contact with confirmed COVID-19 cases was frequent among inpatients and medical support personnel. The most common contact area was the general ward for pulmonology patients and medical support areas, including clinical and imaging examination rooms. Finally, the total number of hospital-associated infections was 14, consisting of four diagnosed at our hospital and ten diagnosed outside the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The robust control of the COVID-19 outbreak further minimized the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the hospital and local communities. However, there was also a debate over the appropriate period of hospital shutdown and testing of all hospital staff and patients. Future studies are required to refine and establish the in-hospital quarantine and de-isolation guidelines based on the epidemiological and clinical settings.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Hospitals, University , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cross Infection/virology , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patients' Rooms , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Quarantine/methods , Retrospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Seoul/epidemiology , Young Adult
7.
Korean J Intern Med ; 35(4): 741-748, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-647803

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China; it has since caused a pandemic, with more than 10,000 confirmed cases (> 800,000 tests) in Korea as of May 2020. Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is currently the most commonly used method for the diagnosis of COVID-19 worldwide. The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and Korea Centers for Disease Prevention and Control regularly update the guidelines for COVID-19 diagnosis. Emergency use authorization for some laboratory diagnostic kits has been granted, enabling the timely diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, and the isolation of infected patients. Due to the collective efforts of the government, medical professionals, local authorities, and the public, Korea's response to the COVID-19 outbreak has been accepted widely as a model. Here, we summarize the currently available laboratory tests for COVID-19 diagnosis. Although RT-PCR tests are used widely to confirm COVID-19, antibody tests could provide information about immune responses to the virus.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Coronavirus , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Antidepressive Agents , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Dentate Gyrus , Fluoxetine , Humans , Receptors, Dopamine D1 , Republic of Korea , SARS-CoV-2 , Serotonin
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...