Abstract
Background Twice-weekly lateral flow device (LFD) testing was introduced for routine asymptomatic testing of healthcare workers (HCWs) in the National Health Service (NHS) in England in November 2020, with the primary aim of reducing nosocomial infections among staff and patients and a secondary aim of reducing absenteeism among HCWs. Here, we describe the burdens of HCW absenteeism and nosocomial infections in NHS acute trusts and the reported testing intensity of LFDs and associated costs from October 2020 to March 2022 and assess the impact of LFD testing on reducing these burdens.
Methods and Findings We collected 16 million LFD testing results (total cost GBP 1.64 billion) reported in NHS acute trusts through England’s Pillar 1 and 2 testing programmes from 1 October 2020 to 30 March 2022. We estimated the prevalence of nosocomial COVID-19 infections in NHS acute trusts using data from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC). Testing data were linked with nosocomial infections and full-time equivalent (FTE) days lost by trust for NHS acute trusts.
We used a mixed-effects linear model to examine the association between FTE days lost and LFD test coverage. The relationship between weekly prevalence of nosocomial infections and LFD test coverage in the previous week was modelled using logistic regression weighted by the number of new COVID-19 cases reported in the ISARIC dataset for that week. We adjusted both models for community prevalence of COVID-19 infections, average income deprivation score, prevalence of variants of concern and LFD test positivity.
FTE days lost among HCWs varied considerably by trust type, staff group, geographical location of trusts, and progress of the pandemic in England. Increased LFD test coverage was associated with decreases in FTE days lost due to COVID-19 from November 2020 to July 2021, with no association observed from August 2021 to March 2022. Higher community prevalence levels were associated with significant increases in FTE days lost due to COVID-19 in all periods except the pre-vaccination period (last two months of 2020). The model predicted that changes in testing levels (50–150%) would have resulted in modest changes in FTE days lost due to COVID-19 for all time periods.
We identified 3,794 nosocomial infections (if patients developed COVID-19 symptoms 7 days or more after their hospital admission) among 106,377 hospitalised COVID-19 patients in 136 NHS acute trusts. The proportion of nosocomial infections among new weekly cases in hospitalised patients was negatively associated with reported LFD testing levels. The strength of the association varied over time and was estimated to be highest during the Omicron period, although no effect of testing on HCW absenteeism was found. The observed HCW testing/reporting was estimated to be associated with a 16.8% (95% confidence interval 8.2%, 18.8%) reduction in nosocomial infections compared with a hypothetical testing scenario at 25% of actual levels, translating to a cost saving per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of GBP 18,500–46,400.
Conclusions LFD testing was an impactful public health intervention for reducing HCW absenteeism and nosocomial infections in NHS acute trusts and was cost effective in preventing nosocomial infections.
Why was this study done?
In any pandemic response, mass diagnostic testing plays a key role.
We sought to evaluate the burdens of healthcare worker absenteeism and nosocomial infections in NHS acute trusts, the reported testing intensity using lateral flow devices (LFDs) and associated costs, and the impact of LFD testing on reducing these burdens.
What did the researchers do and find?
We collected 16 million LFD testing results and full-time equivalent (FTE) days lost due to COVID-19, obtained from healthcare workers (HCWs) in NHS acute trusts in England between 1 October 2020 and 30 March 2022.
We estimated the number of nosocomial COVID-19 infections in NHS acute trusts using data from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC).
Testing data were linked with nosocomial infections and FTE days lost due to COVID-19 by trust for NHS acute trusts.
We used a mixed-effects linear model to examine the association between FTE days lost due to COVID-19 and LFD test coverage and applied a logistic regression to assess the association between nosocomial infections and LFD test coverage.
We found that LFD testing in the healthcare setting was an impactful public health intervention.
LFD testing reduced HCW absenteeism and nosocomial infections in NHS acute trusts; it was also cost effective in preventing nosocomial infections.
What do these findings mean?
Our analysis of the available data indicated that testing HCWs had varying impacts (on both nosocomial infections and HCW FTE days lost due to COVID-19) throughout the pandemic, possibly influenced by external factors such as community prevalence and vaccination.
In any future pandemic, HCW testing interventions should incorporate collection of and/or timely access to relevant data, including HCW absenteeism, routine test results, community prevalence, and hospitalisation and mortality data.
The lessons learnt from this study could be used by relevant authorities to support the real-time assessment of any testing service and adjustment of the testing regimen; they could also be used to help develop more targeted and agile testing systems, which operationally would require the ability to turn mass testing off and on as an epidemic progressed.
Competing Interest Statement
This work was funded by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acting as part of the Crown through UKHSA, reference number C80260/PRO5331. All authors working for EY and the University of Oxford had financial support from UKHSA for the submitted work; EY LLP London has previously received payment for consultancy and advisory work on the NHS Test & Trace response from the UK Department of Health and Social Care, now known as UKHSA. Susan Hopkins is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance (NIHR200915), a partnership between UKHSA and the University of Oxford. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NIHR, UKHSA or the Department of Health and Social Care. All authors declare no other competing interests.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.27.22281604v3
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acting as part of the Crown through UKHSA, reference number C80260/PRO5331. All authors working for EY and the University of Oxford had financial support from UKHSA for the submitted work; EY LLP London has previously received payment for consultancy and advisory work on the NHS Test & Trace response from the UK Department of Health and Social Care, now known as UKHSA. Susan Hopkins is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance (NIHR200915), a partnership between UKHSA and the University of Oxford. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NIHR, UKHSA or the Department of Health and Social Care. All authors declare no other competing interests.
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:
The study protocol for the evaluation project, which this research fed into, was granted ethics approval by the UKHSA Research Ethics and Governance Group, reference number NR0347. All relevant ethics guidelines were followed throughout.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵** EY-Oxford Health Analytics Consortium membership list Ricardo Aguas, Ma’ayan Amswych, Billie Andersen-Waine, Sumali Bajaj, Kweku Bimpong, Adam Bodley, Liberty Cantrell, Siyu Chen, Richard Creswell, Prabin Dahal, Sophie Dickinson, Sabine Dittrich, Tracy Evans, Angus Ferguson-Lewis, Caroline Franco, Bo Gao, Rachel
Data Availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supporting information. The data were made available by UKHSA to the manuscript's authors as part of a retrospective evaluation of England's COVID-19 testing programme. The authors cannot make the underlying datasets publicly available for ethical and legal reasons, particularly given the sensitive nature of the information included. Applications for access to the anonymised data should be submitted to UKHSA.
Abbreviations
- ACT
- acute trust
- AIC
- Akaike information criterion
- AMT
- ambulance trust
- CI
- confidence interval
- CMT
- community trust
- COVID-19
- coronavirus disease 2019
- FY
- financial year
- HCHS
- Hospital and Community Health Service
- HCW
- healthcare worker
- ICER
- incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
- IQR
- interquartile range
- ISARIC
- International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium
- LFD
- lateral flow device
- LTLA
- lower-tier local authority
- MHU
- mental health trust
- NHS
- National Health Service
- NIMS
- National Immunisation Management System
- ONS
- Office for National Statistics
- OR
- odds ratio
- PCR
- polymerase chain reaction
- QALY
- quality-adjusted life-year
- SARS-CoV-2
- severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
