Abstract
Introduction Reliable rapid testing on COVID-19 is needed in care homes to reduce the risk of outbreaks and enable timely care. Point-of-care testing (POCT) in care homes could provide rapid actionable results. This study aimed to examine the usability and test performance of point of care polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for COVID-19 in care homes.
Methods Point-of-care PCR for detection of SARS-COV2 was evaluated in a purposeful sample of four UK care homes. Test agreement with laboratory real-time PCR and usability and use errors were assessed.
Results Point of care and laboratory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests were performed on 278 participants. The point of care and laboratory tests returned uncertain results or errors for 17 and 5 specimens respectively. Agreement analysis was conducted on 256 specimens. 175 were from staff: 162 asymptomatic; 13 symptomatic. 69 were from residents: 59 asymptomatic; 10 symptomatic. Asymptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%-99.6%) positive agreement and 98.7% negative agreement (95% CI: 96.2%-99.7%), with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) of 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932 – 0.999). Symptomatic specimens showed 100% (95% CI: 2.5%-100%) positive agreement and 100% negative agreement (95% CI: 85.8%-100%), with overall PABAK of 1. No usability-related hazards emerged from this exploratory study.
Conclusion Applications of point-of-care PCR testing in care homes can be considered with appropriate preparatory steps and safeguards. Agreement between POCT and laboratory PCR was good. Further diagnostic accuracy evaluations and in-service evaluation studies should be conducted, if the test is to be implemented more widely, to build greater certainty on this initial exploratory analysis.
Key points
Point of care tests (POCT) in care homes are feasible and could increase testing capacity for the control of COVID-19 infection.
The test of agreement between POCT and laboratory PCR for care home residents and the staff was good.
Adoption of POCT in care homes can be considered with appropriate preparatory steps and safeguards in place.
Repetitive errors and test malfunctioning can be mitigated with bespoke training for care home staff.
Integrated care pathways should be investigated to test the high variability of the context of use.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation, as a part of the CONDOR study. M.M. and P.B. are supported by the NIHR London In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative; A.L.G. is funded in part by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration-East Midlands. A.J.A. is supported by the NIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative. D.S.L. is funded in part by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands and the NIHR Community Healthcare MedTech and IVD Cooperative (MIC) at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. C.T. and K.S. are funded in part by the NIHR ARC Yorkshire and Humber. G.H. is supported by the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders, the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. POCKIT Central Nucleic Acid Analyzers were loaned, at no cost, by the supplier, HORIBA UK Ltd. The research team was independent of the manufacturer throughout and Horiba have not participated in the research, analysis or write-up of this paper. RP acknowledges part-funding from the NIHR (NIHR Programme Grant for Applied Research), the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the NIHR Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaborative, NIHR Oxford Medtech and In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative and the Oxford Martin School.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This project was approved as a Service Evaluation by Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (ICHNT) registration no. 471.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
One co-author's name was misspelt. One co-author was missing
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials. The data that support the usability study are available on request from the corresponding author, [AG]. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions regarding the privacy of research participants.
