ABSTRACT
Background In the fight against COVID-19, efficient fever screening was essential to curb transmission. Fever served as a cardinal symptom, aiding early and timely identification of fever among healthcare workers (HCWs) was crucial. While non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) offered non-invasive screening, existing data gaps were present. This study aimed to assess the NCIT effectiveness in HCW fever screening by comparing results with serology and RT-PCR tests, ascertaining their utility in healthcare settings for COVID-19 detection.
Methods This prospective observational study was conducted at a dedicated COVID-19 tertiary care hospital with 250 beds in South India. The study population comprised 736 healthcare workers (HCWs) working in the hospital, and the study was carried out between April 2020 and December 2020. Daily fever screening using non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) was performed on all HCWs upon their entry to the hospital. Additionally, serological tests were offered to all HCWs starting from November 2020 to assess prior COVID-19 infection exposure. COVID-19 admissions were closely monitored during the study period to identify hospitalized HCWs with symptoms who subsequently tested positive for COVID-19 using RT-PCR.
Results In this study cohort of 736 HCWs, 44,836 NCIT screenings revealed no fever cases. The serological analysis identified prior COVID-19 exposure in 229 HCWs. McNemar’s test (χ2 = 26.27, p < 0.05) emphasized discordance between NCIT and serology. ROC analysis yielded an AUC of 0.500, indicating NCIT’s challenge in distinguishing febrile cases. Additionally, 68 symptomatic HCWs tested COVID-19 positive through RT-PCR, highlighting the role of complementary diagnostics.
Conclusion The failure of NCIT to identify fever cases in our study highlights the importance of incorporating supplementary screening methods and comprehensive strategies in future pandemic preparedness.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
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:
Ethics approval was obtained from institutional ethics committee of Apollo hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India (IEC-BMR App No: AVH-C-S-009/07-23).
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
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
