Strategies utilized to prevent and control SARS-CoV-2 transmission in two congregate, psychiatric healthcare settings during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial effect on the delivery of psychiatric health care. Inpatient psychiatric health care facilities have experienced outbreaks of COVID-19, making these areas particularly vulnerable. METHODS: Our facility used a multidisciplinary approach to implement enhanced infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions in our psychiatric health care areas. RESULTS: In a 16-month period during the COVID-19 pandemic, our 2 facilities provided >29,000 patient days of care to 1,807 patients and identified only 47 COVID-19 positive psychiatric health inpatients (47/1,807, or 2.6%). We identified the majority of these cases by testing all patients at admission, preventing subsequent outbreaks. Twenty-one psychiatric health care personnel were identified as COVID+ during the same period, with 90% linked to an exposure other than a known positive case at work. DISCUSSION: The IPC interventions we implemented provided multiple layers of safety for our patients and our staff. Ultimately, this resulted in low SARS-CoV-2 infection rates within our facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric health care facilities are uniquely vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks because they are congregate units that promote therapeutic interactions in shared spaces. IPC interventions used in acute medical care settings can also work effectively in psychiatric health care, but often require modifications to ensure staff and patient safety.

Discontinuation of Transmission Precautions for COVID-19 Patients: Polymerase Chain Reaction Diagnostics, Patient Delays, and Cycle Threshold Values.

BACKGROUND: The decision of when it is safe to discontinue transmission-based precautions for SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalized patients has been controversial. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offered reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostic test- or symptom-based guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of Vidant Health system, Eastern North Carolina, was conducted. Length of stay, days in isolation unit, and date appropriate for discharge or isolation discontinuation based on the symptom-based strategy were recorded. RESULTS: Of 196 COVID hospitalized patients, 34 had repeated COVID PCR tests 3 or more days from their first positive test result. Half of these patients experienced delays in release from transmission-based precautions because of repeated positive PCR test results and use of the test-based approach. This resulted in an additional 166 days of hospitalization, costing an estimated $415,000. Furthermore, 2 subjects had a combined 16-day delay in necessary medical procedures. Most of the COVID PCR platforms yield quantitative results in the form of cycle threshold (Ct) values, the number of cycles needed to detect the genome. These values have also been used to assess whether patients are likely to remain contagious. None of our patients who met the criteria for symptom-based strategy for transmission-based precaution discontinuation had positive PCR test results with Ct values lower than 25, but 4 had Ct values lower than 30. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns surround immunocompromised patients and those treated with steroids who might be delayed or incapable of stopping viral replication and thus remain contagious. Our results suggest that clinicians use all available data including Ct values to evaluate the safety of discontinuation of transmission precautions.

Comparison of five SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests in a hospital setting and performance of one antigen assay in routine practice: a useful tool to guide isolation precautions?

BACKGROUND: In a hospital setting, there is a need for rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) to guide isolation measures and targeted admission. AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of five SARS-CoV-2 rapid nucleocapsid protein antigen detection (RAD) assays (Biosynex, Biotical, Orient Gene, Panbio and SD Biosensor), and describe the performance and impact of implementation of the SD Biosensor assay in an emergency department. METHODS: Sensitivity and specificity of the five RAD assays were analysed on 100 respiratory samples: 60 real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive samples, 24 SARS-CoV-2 RNA-negative samples and 16 samples positive for other respiratory pathogens. The manufacturer's protocol was adapted to validate the antigen tests on transport media used for rRT-PCR in the authors' routine practice. The SD Biosensor RAD assay was implemented as a screening method for rapid diagnosis and targeted admission. FINDINGS: Sensitivity of the five RAD assays ranged from 88.9% to 100% for samples with cycle threshold values <26, and specificity ranged from 46.2% to 100%. During the implementation period, 4195 RAD tests were performed. Due to the rapid RAD result, 157 patients were transferred directly to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cohort ward instead of the regular ward (N=47) or the temporary COVID-19 ward (N=110). CONCLUSION: The SD Biosensor, Biotical and Panbio SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests showed acceptable overall performance, and identified the majority of contagious patients. In the context of high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, RAD tests can be used as a rapid screening tool to guide infection prevention measures and aid targeted admission.

Impact of Maternal Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Detection on Breastfeeding Due to Infant Separation at Birth.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of separation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive mother-newborn dyads on breastfeeding outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This observational longitudinal cohort study of mothers with SARS-CoV-2 PCR-and their infants at 3 NYU Langone Health hospitals was conducted between March 25, 2020, and May 30, 2020. Mothers were surveyed by telephone regarding predelivery feeding plans, in-hospital feeding, and home feeding of their neonates. Any change prompted an additional question to determine whether this change was due to coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). RESULTS: Of the 160 mother-newborn dyads, 103 mothers were reached by telephone, and 85 consented to participate. There was no significant difference in the predelivery feeding plan between the separated and unseparated dyads (P = .268). Higher rates of breastfeeding were observed in the unseparated dyads compared with the separated dyads both in the hospital (P < .001) and at home (P = .012). Only 2 mothers in each group reported expressed breast milk as the hospital feeding source (5.6% of unseparated vs 4.1% of separated). COVID-19 was more commonly cited as the reason for change in the separated group (49.0% vs 16.7%; P < .001). When the dyads were further stratified by symptom status into 4 groups-asymptomatic separated, asymptomatic unseparated, symptomatic separated, and symptomatic unseparated-the results remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of COVID-19, separation of mother-newborn dyads impacts breastfeeding outcomes, with lower rates of breastfeeding both during hospitalization and at home following discharge compared with unseparated mothers and infants. No evidence of vertical transmission was observed; 1 case of postnatal transmission occurred from an unmasked symptomatic mother who held her infant at birth.

Mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on oncology: Clinical and operational lessons from a prospective radiation oncology cohort tested for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic warrants operational initiatives to minimize transmission, particularly among cancer patients who are thought to be at high-risk. Within our department, a multidisciplinary tracer team prospectively monitored all patients under investigation, tracking their test status, treatment delays, clinical outcomes, employee exposures, and quarantines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort tested for SARS-COV-2 infection over 35 consecutive days of the early pandemic (03/19/2020-04/22/2020). RESULTS: A total of 121 Radiation Oncology patients underwent RT-PCR testing during this timeframe. Of the 7 (6%) confirmed-positive cases, 6 patients were admitted (4 warranting intensive care), and 2 died from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Radiotherapy was deferred or interrupted for 40 patients awaiting testing. As the median turnaround time for RT-PCR testing decreased from 1.5 (IQR: 1-4) to ≤1-day (P < 0.001), the median treatment delay also decreased from 3.5 (IQR: 1.75-5) to 1 business day (IQR: 1-2) [P < 0.001]. Each patient was an exposure risk to a median of 5 employees (IQR: 3-6.5) through prolonged close contact. During this timeframe, 39 care-team members were quarantined for a median of 3 days (IQR: 2-11), with a peak of 17 employees simultaneously quarantined. Following implementation of a "dual PPE policy," newly quarantined employees decreased from 2.9 to 0.5 per day. CONCLUSION: The severe adverse events noted among these confirmed-positive cases support the notion that cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19. Active tracking, rapid diagnosis, and aggressive source control can mitigate the adverse effects on treatment delays, workforce incapacitation, and ideally outcomes.

COVID-19 in a Patient Presenting with Syncope and a Normal Chest X-ray.

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus that has now affected hundreds of thousands of individuals across the world. Amidst this global pandemic, maintaining a high index of suspicion, rapid testing capacity, and infection control measures are required to curtail the virus' rapid spread. While fever and respiratory symptoms have been commonly used to identify COVID-19 suspects, we present an elderly female who arrived to the hospital after a syncopal episode. She was afebrile with a normal chest X-ray and there was no suspicion of COVID-19. She then developed a fever and tested positive for COVID-19. Our unique case underscores the increasing diversity of COVID-19 presentations and potential for initial mis- diagnosis and delay in implementing proper precautions.