ABSTRACT
Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 have good reliability and have been repeatedly implemented as part of pandemic response policies, especially for screening in high-risk settings (e.g., hospitals and care homes) where fast recognition of an infection is essential, but evidence from actual implementation efforts is lacking.
We conducted a prospective qualitative study at a large tertiary care hospital in Germany where RDTs are used to screen incoming patients. We relied on semi-structured observations of the screening situation, as well as on 30 in-depth interviews with hospital staff (members of the regulatory body, department heads, staff working on the wards, staff training providers on how to perform RDTs, and providers performing RDTs as part of the screening) and patients being screened with RDTs.
Despite some initial reservations, RDTs were rapidly accepted and adopted as the best available tool for accessible and reliable screening. Decentralized implementation efforts resulted in different procedures being operationalized across departments. Procedures were continuously refined based on initial experiences (e.g., infrastructural or scheduling constraints), pandemic dynamics (growing infection rates), and changing regulations (e.g., screening of all external personnel). To reduce interdepartmental tension, stakeholders recommended high-level, consistently communicated and enforced regulations.
Despite challenges, RDT-based screening for all incoming patients was observed to be feasible and acceptable among implementers and patients, and merits continued consideration in the context of rising infections and stagnating vaccination rates.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
DRKS00023584
Funding Statement
This study was supported by a grant of the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, as well as hospital-internal funds. Funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
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:
Ethical review board of the Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany (S-811/2020)
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
↵* Shared senior authors
Data Availability
Considering the high public interest in research on COVID-19, qualitative data of participants who have indicated their agreement to this as part of the informed consent procedure can be shared with other researchers. However, to preserve the anonymity of respondents and considering the personal nature of qualitative data, requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Please contact the corresponding author.
