COVID-19 Updates

Weekly COVID-19 cases in children dropped again, but the count remained above 200,000 for the fifth consecutive week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Over that 5-week span since the end of August, in fact, the United States has added over 1.13 million new cases, or just under 20% of all cases (5.7 million) in children during the entire pandemic, based on the data in the AAP/CHA joint weekly report on COVID in children.

In the most recent week, Sept. 17-23, there were almost 207,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children, which represented 26.7% of all cases reported in the 46 states that are currently posting data by age on their COVID dashboards, the AAP and CHA said. (New York has never reported such data by age, and Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas have not updated their websites since July 29, June 24, and Aug. 26, respectively.)

The decline in new vaccinations among children, however, began before the summer surge in new cases hit its peak – 251,781 during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2 – and has continued for 7 straight weeks in children aged 12-17 years, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were about 172,000 COVID vaccine initiations in children aged 12-17 for the week of Sept. 21-27, the lowest number since April, before it was approved for use in 12- to 15-year-olds. That figure is down by almost a third from the previous week and by more than two-thirds since early August, just before the decline in vaccinations began, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The cumulative vaccine situation looks like this: Just over 13 million children under age 18 years have received at least one dose as of Sept. 27, and almost 10.6 million are fully vaccinated. By age group, 53.9% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 61.6% of 16- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose, with corresponding figures of 43.3% and 51.3% for full vaccination, the CDC said.

COVID-related hospital admissions also continue to fall after peaking at 0.51 children aged 0-17 per 100,000 population on Sept. 4. The admission rate was down to 0.45 per 100,000 as of Sept. 17, and the latest 7-day average (Sept. 19-25) was 258 admissions, compared with a peak of 371 for the week of Aug. 29 to Sept. 4, the CDC reported.

“Although we have seen slight improvements in COVID-19 volumes in the past week, we are at the beginning of an anticipated increase in” multi-inflammatory syndrome in children, Margaret Rush, MD, president of Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said at a recent hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Oversight subcommittee. That increase would be expected to produce “a secondary wave of seriously ill children 3-6 weeks after acute infection peaks in the community,” the American Hospital Association said.

Meanwhile, Dr. Rush noted, there are signs that seasonal viruses are coming into play. “With the emergence of the Delta variant, we’ve experienced a steep increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations among children on top of an early surge of [respiratory syncytial virus], a serious respiratory illness we usually see in the winter months,” she said in a prepared statement before her testimony.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly COVID-19 cases in children dropped again, but the count remained above 200,000 for the fifth consecutive week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Over that 5-week span since the end of August, in fact, the United States has added over 1.13 million new cases, or just under 20% of all cases (5.7 million) in children during the entire pandemic, based on the data in the AAP/CHA joint weekly report on COVID in children.

In the most recent week, Sept. 17-23, there were almost 207,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children, which represented 26.7% of all cases reported in the 46 states that are currently posting data by age on their COVID dashboards, the AAP and CHA said. (New York has never reported such data by age, and Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas have not updated their websites since July 29, June 24, and Aug. 26, respectively.)

The decline in new vaccinations among children, however, began before the summer surge in new cases hit its peak – 251,781 during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2 – and has continued for 7 straight weeks in children aged 12-17 years, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were about 172,000 COVID vaccine initiations in children aged 12-17 for the week of Sept. 21-27, the lowest number since April, before it was approved for use in 12- to 15-year-olds. That figure is down by almost a third from the previous week and by more than two-thirds since early August, just before the decline in vaccinations began, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The cumulative vaccine situation looks like this: Just over 13 million children under age 18 years have received at least one dose as of Sept. 27, and almost 10.6 million are fully vaccinated. By age group, 53.9% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 61.6% of 16- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose, with corresponding figures of 43.3% and 51.3% for full vaccination, the CDC said.

COVID-related hospital admissions also continue to fall after peaking at 0.51 children aged 0-17 per 100,000 population on Sept. 4. The admission rate was down to 0.45 per 100,000 as of Sept. 17, and the latest 7-day average (Sept. 19-25) was 258 admissions, compared with a peak of 371 for the week of Aug. 29 to Sept. 4, the CDC reported.

“Although we have seen slight improvements in COVID-19 volumes in the past week, we are at the beginning of an anticipated increase in” multi-inflammatory syndrome in children, Margaret Rush, MD, president of Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said at a recent hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Oversight subcommittee. That increase would be expected to produce “a secondary wave of seriously ill children 3-6 weeks after acute infection peaks in the community,” the American Hospital Association said.

Meanwhile, Dr. Rush noted, there are signs that seasonal viruses are coming into play. “With the emergence of the Delta variant, we’ve experienced a steep increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations among children on top of an early surge of [respiratory syncytial virus], a serious respiratory illness we usually see in the winter months,” she said in a prepared statement before her testimony.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly COVID-19 cases in children dropped again, but the count remained above 200,000 for the fifth consecutive week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Over that 5-week span since the end of August, in fact, the United States has added over 1.13 million new cases, or just under 20% of all cases (5.7 million) in children during the entire pandemic, based on the data in the AAP/CHA joint weekly report on COVID in children.

In the most recent week, Sept. 17-23, there were almost 207,000 new cases of COVID-19 in children, which represented 26.7% of all cases reported in the 46 states that are currently posting data by age on their COVID dashboards, the AAP and CHA said. (New York has never reported such data by age, and Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas have not updated their websites since July 29, June 24, and Aug. 26, respectively.)

The decline in new vaccinations among children, however, began before the summer surge in new cases hit its peak – 251,781 during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2 – and has continued for 7 straight weeks in children aged 12-17 years, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were about 172,000 COVID vaccine initiations in children aged 12-17 for the week of Sept. 21-27, the lowest number since April, before it was approved for use in 12- to 15-year-olds. That figure is down by almost a third from the previous week and by more than two-thirds since early August, just before the decline in vaccinations began, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The cumulative vaccine situation looks like this: Just over 13 million children under age 18 years have received at least one dose as of Sept. 27, and almost 10.6 million are fully vaccinated. By age group, 53.9% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 61.6% of 16- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose, with corresponding figures of 43.3% and 51.3% for full vaccination, the CDC said.

COVID-related hospital admissions also continue to fall after peaking at 0.51 children aged 0-17 per 100,000 population on Sept. 4. The admission rate was down to 0.45 per 100,000 as of Sept. 17, and the latest 7-day average (Sept. 19-25) was 258 admissions, compared with a peak of 371 for the week of Aug. 29 to Sept. 4, the CDC reported.

“Although we have seen slight improvements in COVID-19 volumes in the past week, we are at the beginning of an anticipated increase in” multi-inflammatory syndrome in children, Margaret Rush, MD, president of Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said at a recent hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Oversight subcommittee. That increase would be expected to produce “a secondary wave of seriously ill children 3-6 weeks after acute infection peaks in the community,” the American Hospital Association said.

Meanwhile, Dr. Rush noted, there are signs that seasonal viruses are coming into play. “With the emergence of the Delta variant, we’ve experienced a steep increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations among children on top of an early surge of [respiratory syncytial virus], a serious respiratory illness we usually see in the winter months,” she said in a prepared statement before her testimony.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On a recent Monday morning, a group of preschoolers filed into the gymnasium at Hillside School in the west Chicago suburbs. These 4- and 5-year-olds were the first of more than 200 students to get tested for the coronavirus that day – and every Monday – for the foreseeable future.

At the front of the line, a girl in a unicorn headband and sparkly pink skirt clutched a zip-close bag with her name on it. She pulled out a plastic tube with a small funnel attached. Next, Hillside superintendent Kevin Suchinski led the student to a spot marked off with red tape. Mr. Suchinski coached her how to carefully release – but not “spit” – about a half-teaspoon’s worth of saliva into the tube.

“You wait a second, you build up your saliva,” he told her. “You don’t talk, you think about pizza, hamburgers, French fries, ice cream. And you drop it right in there, OK?”

The results will come back within 24 hours. Any students who test positive are instructed to isolate, and the school nurse and administrative staff carry out contact tracing.

Hillside was among the first in Illinois to start regular testing. Now, almost half of Illinois’ 2 million students in grades K-12 attend schools rolling out similar programs. The initiative is supported by federal funding channeled through the state health department.

Schools in other states – such as Massachusetts, Maryland, New York and Colorado – also offer regular testing; Los Angeles public schools have gone further by making it mandatory.

These measures stand in sharp contrast to the confusion in states where people are still fighting about wearing masks in the classroom and other anti-COVID strategies, places where some schools have experienced outbreaks and even teacher deaths.

Within a few weeks of schools reopening, tens of thousands of students across the United States were sent home to quarantine. It’s a concern because options for K-12 students in quarantine are all over the map – with some schools offering virtual instruction and others providing little or no at-home options.

Mr. Suchinski hopes this investment in testing prevents virus detected at Hillside School from spreading into the wider community – and keeps kids learning.

“What we say to ourselves is: If we don’t do this program, we could be losing instruction because we’ve had to close down the school,” he said.

So far, the parents and guardians of two-thirds of all Hillside students have consented to testing. Mr. Suchinski said the school is working hard to get the remaining families on board by educating them about the importance – and benefit – of regular testing.

Every school that can manage it should consider testing students weekly – even twice a week, if possible, said Becky Smith, PhD. She’s an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, which developed the saliva test Hillside and other Illinois schools are using. Smith pointed to several studies – including both peer-reviewed and preliminary research – that suggest rigorous testing and contact tracing are key to keeping the virus at bay in K-12 schools.

“If you’re lucky, you can get away without doing testing, [if] nobody comes to school with a raging infection and takes their mask off at lunchtime and infects everybody sitting at the table with them,” Dr. Smith said. “But relying on luck isn’t what we like to do.”

Julian Hernandez, a Hillside seventh grader, said he feels safer knowing that classmates infected with the virus will be prevented from spreading it to others.

“One of my friends – he got it a couple months ago while we was in school,” Julian recalled. “[He] and his brother had to go back home. ... They were OK. They only had mild symptoms.”

Brandon Muñoz, who’s in the fifth grade, said he’s glad to get tested because he’s too young for the vaccine – and he really doesn’t want to go back to Zoom school.

“Because I wanna really meet more people and friends and just not stay on the computer for too long,” Brandon explained.

Mr. Suchinski said Hillside also improved ventilation throughout the building, installing a new HVAC system and windows with screens in the cafeteria to bring more fresh air in the building.

Regular testing is an added layer of protection, though not the only thing Hillside is relying on: About 90% of Hillside staff are vaccinated, Suchinski said, and students and staffers also wear masks.

Setting up a regular mass-testing program inside a K-12 school takes a good amount of coordination, which Mr. Suchinski can vouch for.

Last school year, Hillside school administrators facilitated the saliva sample collection without outside help. This year, the school tapped funding earmarked for K-12 coronavirus testing to hire COVID testers – who coordinate the collecting, transporting and processing of samples, and reporting results.

A couple of Hillside administrators help oversee the process on Mondays, and also facilitate testing for staff members, plus more frequent testing for a limited group of students: Athletes and children in band and extracurriculars test twice a week because they face greater risks of exposure to the virus from these activities.

Compared with a year ago, COVID testing is now both more affordable and much less invasive, said Mara Aspinall, who studies biomedical testing at Arizona State University. There’s also more help to cover costs.

“The Biden administration has allocated $11 billion to different programs for testing,” Ms. Aspinall said. “There should be no school – public, private or charter – that can’t access that money for testing.”

Creating a mass testing program from scratch is a big lift. But more than half of all states have announced programs to help schools access the money and handle the logistics.

If every school tested every student once a week, the roughly $11 billion earmarked for testing would likely run out in a couple of months. (This assumes $20 to buy and process each test.) Put another way, if a quarter of all U.S. schools tested students weekly, the funds could last the rest of the school year, Ms. Aspinall said.

In its guidance to K-12 schools, updated Aug. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not make a firm recommendation for this surveillance testing.

Instead, the CDC advises schools that choose to offer testing to work with public health officials to determine a suitable approach, given rates of community transmission and other factors.

The agency previously recommended screening at least once a week in all areas experiencing moderate to high levels of community transmission. As of Sept. 21, that included 95% of U.S. counties.

For school leaders looking to explore options, Ms. Aspinall suggests a resource she helped write, which is cited within the CDC guidance to schools: the Rockefeller Foundation’s National Testing Action Plan.

This spring – when Hillside was operating at about half capacity and before the more contagious delta variant took over – the school identified 13 positive cases among students and staffers via its weekly testing program. The overall positivity rate of about half a percent made some wonder if all that testing was necessary.

But Mr. Suchinski said that, by identifying the 13 positive cases, the school perhaps avoided more than a dozen potential outbreaks. Some of the positive cases were among people who weren’t showing symptoms but still could’ve spread the virus.

A couple of weeks into the new school year at Hillside, operating at full capacity, Mr. Suchinski said the excitement is palpable. Nowadays he’s balancing feelings of optimism with caution.

“It is great to hear kids laughing. It’s great to see kids on playgrounds,” Mr. Suchinski said.

“At the same time,” he added, “we know that we’re still fighting against the Delta variant and we have to keep our guard up.”

This story is from a partnership that includes Illinois Public Media, Side Effects Public Media, NPR, and KHN (Kaiser Health News). KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

On a recent Monday morning, a group of preschoolers filed into the gymnasium at Hillside School in the west Chicago suburbs. These 4- and 5-year-olds were the first of more than 200 students to get tested for the coronavirus that day – and every Monday – for the foreseeable future.

At the front of the line, a girl in a unicorn headband and sparkly pink skirt clutched a zip-close bag with her name on it. She pulled out a plastic tube with a small funnel attached. Next, Hillside superintendent Kevin Suchinski led the student to a spot marked off with red tape. Mr. Suchinski coached her how to carefully release – but not “spit” – about a half-teaspoon’s worth of saliva into the tube.

“You wait a second, you build up your saliva,” he told her. “You don’t talk, you think about pizza, hamburgers, French fries, ice cream. And you drop it right in there, OK?”

The results will come back within 24 hours. Any students who test positive are instructed to isolate, and the school nurse and administrative staff carry out contact tracing.

Hillside was among the first in Illinois to start regular testing. Now, almost half of Illinois’ 2 million students in grades K-12 attend schools rolling out similar programs. The initiative is supported by federal funding channeled through the state health department.

Schools in other states – such as Massachusetts, Maryland, New York and Colorado – also offer regular testing; Los Angeles public schools have gone further by making it mandatory.

These measures stand in sharp contrast to the confusion in states where people are still fighting about wearing masks in the classroom and other anti-COVID strategies, places where some schools have experienced outbreaks and even teacher deaths.

Within a few weeks of schools reopening, tens of thousands of students across the United States were sent home to quarantine. It’s a concern because options for K-12 students in quarantine are all over the map – with some schools offering virtual instruction and others providing little or no at-home options.

Mr. Suchinski hopes this investment in testing prevents virus detected at Hillside School from spreading into the wider community – and keeps kids learning.

“What we say to ourselves is: If we don’t do this program, we could be losing instruction because we’ve had to close down the school,” he said.

So far, the parents and guardians of two-thirds of all Hillside students have consented to testing. Mr. Suchinski said the school is working hard to get the remaining families on board by educating them about the importance – and benefit – of regular testing.

Every school that can manage it should consider testing students weekly – even twice a week, if possible, said Becky Smith, PhD. She’s an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, which developed the saliva test Hillside and other Illinois schools are using. Smith pointed to several studies – including both peer-reviewed and preliminary research – that suggest rigorous testing and contact tracing are key to keeping the virus at bay in K-12 schools.

“If you’re lucky, you can get away without doing testing, [if] nobody comes to school with a raging infection and takes their mask off at lunchtime and infects everybody sitting at the table with them,” Dr. Smith said. “But relying on luck isn’t what we like to do.”

Julian Hernandez, a Hillside seventh grader, said he feels safer knowing that classmates infected with the virus will be prevented from spreading it to others.

“One of my friends – he got it a couple months ago while we was in school,” Julian recalled. “[He] and his brother had to go back home. ... They were OK. They only had mild symptoms.”

Brandon Muñoz, who’s in the fifth grade, said he’s glad to get tested because he’s too young for the vaccine – and he really doesn’t want to go back to Zoom school.

“Because I wanna really meet more people and friends and just not stay on the computer for too long,” Brandon explained.

Mr. Suchinski said Hillside also improved ventilation throughout the building, installing a new HVAC system and windows with screens in the cafeteria to bring more fresh air in the building.

Regular testing is an added layer of protection, though not the only thing Hillside is relying on: About 90% of Hillside staff are vaccinated, Suchinski said, and students and staffers also wear masks.

Setting up a regular mass-testing program inside a K-12 school takes a good amount of coordination, which Mr. Suchinski can vouch for.

Last school year, Hillside school administrators facilitated the saliva sample collection without outside help. This year, the school tapped funding earmarked for K-12 coronavirus testing to hire COVID testers – who coordinate the collecting, transporting and processing of samples, and reporting results.

A couple of Hillside administrators help oversee the process on Mondays, and also facilitate testing for staff members, plus more frequent testing for a limited group of students: Athletes and children in band and extracurriculars test twice a week because they face greater risks of exposure to the virus from these activities.

Compared with a year ago, COVID testing is now both more affordable and much less invasive, said Mara Aspinall, who studies biomedical testing at Arizona State University. There’s also more help to cover costs.

“The Biden administration has allocated $11 billion to different programs for testing,” Ms. Aspinall said. “There should be no school – public, private or charter – that can’t access that money for testing.”

Creating a mass testing program from scratch is a big lift. But more than half of all states have announced programs to help schools access the money and handle the logistics.

If every school tested every student once a week, the roughly $11 billion earmarked for testing would likely run out in a couple of months. (This assumes $20 to buy and process each test.) Put another way, if a quarter of all U.S. schools tested students weekly, the funds could last the rest of the school year, Ms. Aspinall said.

In its guidance to K-12 schools, updated Aug. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not make a firm recommendation for this surveillance testing.

Instead, the CDC advises schools that choose to offer testing to work with public health officials to determine a suitable approach, given rates of community transmission and other factors.

The agency previously recommended screening at least once a week in all areas experiencing moderate to high levels of community transmission. As of Sept. 21, that included 95% of U.S. counties.

For school leaders looking to explore options, Ms. Aspinall suggests a resource she helped write, which is cited within the CDC guidance to schools: the Rockefeller Foundation’s National Testing Action Plan.

This spring – when Hillside was operating at about half capacity and before the more contagious delta variant took over – the school identified 13 positive cases among students and staffers via its weekly testing program. The overall positivity rate of about half a percent made some wonder if all that testing was necessary.

But Mr. Suchinski said that, by identifying the 13 positive cases, the school perhaps avoided more than a dozen potential outbreaks. Some of the positive cases were among people who weren’t showing symptoms but still could’ve spread the virus.

A couple of weeks into the new school year at Hillside, operating at full capacity, Mr. Suchinski said the excitement is palpable. Nowadays he’s balancing feelings of optimism with caution.

“It is great to hear kids laughing. It’s great to see kids on playgrounds,” Mr. Suchinski said.

“At the same time,” he added, “we know that we’re still fighting against the Delta variant and we have to keep our guard up.”

This story is from a partnership that includes Illinois Public Media, Side Effects Public Media, NPR, and KHN (Kaiser Health News). KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

On a recent Monday morning, a group of preschoolers filed into the gymnasium at Hillside School in the west Chicago suburbs. These 4- and 5-year-olds were the first of more than 200 students to get tested for the coronavirus that day – and every Monday – for the foreseeable future.

At the front of the line, a girl in a unicorn headband and sparkly pink skirt clutched a zip-close bag with her name on it. She pulled out a plastic tube with a small funnel attached. Next, Hillside superintendent Kevin Suchinski led the student to a spot marked off with red tape. Mr. Suchinski coached her how to carefully release – but not “spit” – about a half-teaspoon’s worth of saliva into the tube.

“You wait a second, you build up your saliva,” he told her. “You don’t talk, you think about pizza, hamburgers, French fries, ice cream. And you drop it right in there, OK?”

The results will come back within 24 hours. Any students who test positive are instructed to isolate, and the school nurse and administrative staff carry out contact tracing.

Hillside was among the first in Illinois to start regular testing. Now, almost half of Illinois’ 2 million students in grades K-12 attend schools rolling out similar programs. The initiative is supported by federal funding channeled through the state health department.

Schools in other states – such as Massachusetts, Maryland, New York and Colorado – also offer regular testing; Los Angeles public schools have gone further by making it mandatory.

These measures stand in sharp contrast to the confusion in states where people are still fighting about wearing masks in the classroom and other anti-COVID strategies, places where some schools have experienced outbreaks and even teacher deaths.

Within a few weeks of schools reopening, tens of thousands of students across the United States were sent home to quarantine. It’s a concern because options for K-12 students in quarantine are all over the map – with some schools offering virtual instruction and others providing little or no at-home options.

Mr. Suchinski hopes this investment in testing prevents virus detected at Hillside School from spreading into the wider community – and keeps kids learning.

“What we say to ourselves is: If we don’t do this program, we could be losing instruction because we’ve had to close down the school,” he said.

So far, the parents and guardians of two-thirds of all Hillside students have consented to testing. Mr. Suchinski said the school is working hard to get the remaining families on board by educating them about the importance – and benefit – of regular testing.

Every school that can manage it should consider testing students weekly – even twice a week, if possible, said Becky Smith, PhD. She’s an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, which developed the saliva test Hillside and other Illinois schools are using. Smith pointed to several studies – including both peer-reviewed and preliminary research – that suggest rigorous testing and contact tracing are key to keeping the virus at bay in K-12 schools.

“If you’re lucky, you can get away without doing testing, [if] nobody comes to school with a raging infection and takes their mask off at lunchtime and infects everybody sitting at the table with them,” Dr. Smith said. “But relying on luck isn’t what we like to do.”

Julian Hernandez, a Hillside seventh grader, said he feels safer knowing that classmates infected with the virus will be prevented from spreading it to others.

“One of my friends – he got it a couple months ago while we was in school,” Julian recalled. “[He] and his brother had to go back home. ... They were OK. They only had mild symptoms.”

Brandon Muñoz, who’s in the fifth grade, said he’s glad to get tested because he’s too young for the vaccine – and he really doesn’t want to go back to Zoom school.

“Because I wanna really meet more people and friends and just not stay on the computer for too long,” Brandon explained.

Mr. Suchinski said Hillside also improved ventilation throughout the building, installing a new HVAC system and windows with screens in the cafeteria to bring more fresh air in the building.

Regular testing is an added layer of protection, though not the only thing Hillside is relying on: About 90% of Hillside staff are vaccinated, Suchinski said, and students and staffers also wear masks.

Setting up a regular mass-testing program inside a K-12 school takes a good amount of coordination, which Mr. Suchinski can vouch for.

Last school year, Hillside school administrators facilitated the saliva sample collection without outside help. This year, the school tapped funding earmarked for K-12 coronavirus testing to hire COVID testers – who coordinate the collecting, transporting and processing of samples, and reporting results.

A couple of Hillside administrators help oversee the process on Mondays, and also facilitate testing for staff members, plus more frequent testing for a limited group of students: Athletes and children in band and extracurriculars test twice a week because they face greater risks of exposure to the virus from these activities.

Compared with a year ago, COVID testing is now both more affordable and much less invasive, said Mara Aspinall, who studies biomedical testing at Arizona State University. There’s also more help to cover costs.

“The Biden administration has allocated $11 billion to different programs for testing,” Ms. Aspinall said. “There should be no school – public, private or charter – that can’t access that money for testing.”

Creating a mass testing program from scratch is a big lift. But more than half of all states have announced programs to help schools access the money and handle the logistics.

If every school tested every student once a week, the roughly $11 billion earmarked for testing would likely run out in a couple of months. (This assumes $20 to buy and process each test.) Put another way, if a quarter of all U.S. schools tested students weekly, the funds could last the rest of the school year, Ms. Aspinall said.

In its guidance to K-12 schools, updated Aug. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not make a firm recommendation for this surveillance testing.

Instead, the CDC advises schools that choose to offer testing to work with public health officials to determine a suitable approach, given rates of community transmission and other factors.

The agency previously recommended screening at least once a week in all areas experiencing moderate to high levels of community transmission. As of Sept. 21, that included 95% of U.S. counties.

For school leaders looking to explore options, Ms. Aspinall suggests a resource she helped write, which is cited within the CDC guidance to schools: the Rockefeller Foundation’s National Testing Action Plan.

This spring – when Hillside was operating at about half capacity and before the more contagious delta variant took over – the school identified 13 positive cases among students and staffers via its weekly testing program. The overall positivity rate of about half a percent made some wonder if all that testing was necessary.

But Mr. Suchinski said that, by identifying the 13 positive cases, the school perhaps avoided more than a dozen potential outbreaks. Some of the positive cases were among people who weren’t showing symptoms but still could’ve spread the virus.

A couple of weeks into the new school year at Hillside, operating at full capacity, Mr. Suchinski said the excitement is palpable. Nowadays he’s balancing feelings of optimism with caution.

“It is great to hear kids laughing. It’s great to see kids on playgrounds,” Mr. Suchinski said.

“At the same time,” he added, “we know that we’re still fighting against the Delta variant and we have to keep our guard up.”

This story is from a partnership that includes Illinois Public Media, Side Effects Public Media, NPR, and KHN (Kaiser Health News). KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

From Northwell Health, Lake Success, NY.

Objective: Northwell Health, New York’s largest health care organization, rapidly adopted technology solutions to support patient and family communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: This case series outlines the pragmatic, interdisciplinary approach Northwell underwent to rapidly implement patient virtual visitation processes during the peak of the initial crisis.

Results: Implementation of large-scale virtual visitation required leadership, technology, and dedicated, empathetic frontline professionals. Patient and family feedback uncovered varied feelings and perspectives, from confusion to gratitude.

Conclusion: Subsequent efforts to obtain direct patient and family perspectives and insights helped Northwell identify areas of strength and ongoing performance improvement.

Keywords: virtual visitation; COVID-19; technology; communication; patient experience.

The power of human connection has become increasingly apparent throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recovery phases. Due to the need for social distancing, people worldwide have turned to virtual means of communication, staying in touch with family, friends, and colleagues via digital technology platforms. On March 18, 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) issued a health advisory, suspending all hospital visitation.¹ As a result, hospitals rapidly transformed existing in-person visitation practices to meet large-scale virtual programming needs.

Family members often take on various roles—such as advocate, emotional support person, and postdischarge caregiver—for an ill or injured loved one.² The Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, a nonprofit organization founded in 1992, has been leading a cultural transformation where families are valued as care partners, as opposed to “visitors.”³ Although widely adopted and well-received in specialized units, such as neonatal intensive care units,⁴ virtual visitation had not been widely implemented across adult care settings. The NYSDOH guidance therefore required organizational leadership, innovation, flexibility, and systems ingenuity to meet the evolving needs of patients, families, and health care professionals. An overarching goal was ensuring patients and families were afforded opportunities to stay connected throughout hospitalization.

Reflecting the impact of COVID-19 surges, hospital environments became increasingly depersonalized, with health care providers wearing extensive personal protective equipment (PPE) and taking remarkable measures to socially distance and minimize exposure. Patients’ room doors were kept primarily closed, while codes and alerts blared in the halls overhead. The lack of families and visitors became increasingly obvious, aiding feelings of isolation and confinement. With fear of nosocomial transmission, impactful modalities (such as sitting at the bedside) and empathetic, therapeutic touch were no longer taking place.

With those scenarios—common to so many health care systems during the pandemic—as a backdrop, comes our experience. Northwell Health is the largest health care system in New York State, geographically spread throughout New York City’s 5 boroughs, Westchester County, and Long Island. With 23 hospitals, approximately 820 medical practices, and over 72 000 employees, Northwell has cared for more than 100 000 COVID-positive patients to date. This case series outlines a pragmatic approach to implementing virtual visitation during the initial peak and obtaining patient and family perspectives to help inform performance improvement and future programming.

Methods

Implementing virtual visitation

Through swift and focused multidisciplinary collaboration, numerous Northwell teams came together to implement large-scale virtual visitation across the organization during the first wave of the COVID crisis. The initial priority involved securing devices that could support patient-family communication. Prior to COVID, each facility had only a handful of tablets that were used primarily during leadership rounding, so once visitation was restricted, we needed a large quantity of devices within a matter of days. Through diligent work from System Procurement and internal Foundation, Northwell was able to acquire nearly 900 devices, including iPads, PadInMotion tablets, and Samsung tablets.

Typically, the benefits of using wireless tablets within a health care setting include long battery life, powerful data processing, advanced operating systems, large screens, and easy end-user navigation.⁴ During COVID-19 and its associated isolation precautions, tablets offered a lifeline for effective and socially distant communication. With new devices in hand, the system Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and site-based Information Technology (IT) teams were engaged. They worked tirelessly to streamline connectivity, download necessary apps, test devices on approved WiFi networks, and troubleshoot issues. Once set up, devices were strategically deployed across all Northwell hospitals and post-acute rehabilitation facilities.

Frontline teams quickly realized that a model similar to mobile proning teams, who focus solely on turning and positioning COVID patients to promote optimal respiratory ventilation,⁵ was needed to support virtual visitation. During the initial COVID wave, elective surgeries were not permissible, as per the NYSDOH. As a result, large numbers of clinical and nonclinical ambulatory surgery employees were redeployed throughout the organization, with many assigned and dedicated to facilitating newly created virtual visitation processes. These employees were primarily responsible for creating unit-based schedules, coordinating logistics, navigating devices on behalf of patients, being present during video calls, and sanitizing the devices between uses. Finally, if necessary, virtual interpretation services were used to overcome language barriers between staff and patients.

What began as an ad hoc function quickly became a valued and meaningful role. Utilizing triage mentality, virtual visitation was first offered during unit-based rounding protocols to those patients with the highest acuity and need to connect with family. We had no formal script; instead, unit-based leaders and frontline team members had open dialogues with patients and families to gauge their interest in virtual visitation. That included patients with an active end-of-life care plan, critically ill patients within intensive care units, and those soon to be intubated or recently extubated. Utilization also occurred within specialty areas such as labor and delivery, pediatrics, inpatient psychiatry, medical units, and long-term rehab facilities. Frontline teams appreciated the supplementary support so they could prioritize ongoing physical assessments and medical interventions. Donned in PPE, virtual visitation team members often served as physical extensions of the patient’s loved ones—holding their hand, offering prayers, and, at times, bearing witness to a last breath. In reflecting on that time, this role required absolute professionalism, empathy, and compassion.

In summer 2020, although demand for virtual visitation was still at an all-time high when ambulatory surgery was reinstated, redeployed staff returned to their responsibilities. To fill this void without interruption to patients and their families, site leaders quickly pivoted and refined processes and protocols utilizing Patient & Customer Experience and Hospitality department team members. Throughout spring 2021, the NYSDOH offered guidance to open in-person visitation, and the institution’s Clinical Advisory Group has been taking a pragmatic approach to doing that in a measured and safe manner across care settings.

Listening to the ‘voice’ of patients and families

Our institution’s mission is grounded in providing “quality service and patient-centered care.” Honoring those tenets, during the initial COVID wave, the system “Voice of the Customer End User Device Workgroup” was created with system and site-based interdisciplinary representation. Despite challenging and unprecedented times, conscious attention and effort was undertaken to assess the use and impact of virtual devices. One of the major work streams was to capture and examine patient and family thoughts, feedback, and the overall experience as it relates to virtual visitation.

The system Office of Patient & Customer Experience (OPCE), led by Sven Gierlinger, SVP Chief Experience Officer, reached out to our colleagues at Press Ganey to add a custom question to patient experience surveys. Beginning on December 1, 2020, discharged inpatients were asked to rate the “Degree to which you were able to stay connected with your family/caregiver during your stay.” Potential answers include the Likert scale responses of Always, Usually, Sometimes, and Never, with “Always” representing the Top Box score. The OPCE team believes these quantitative insights are important to track and trend, particularly since in-person and virtual visitation remain in constant flux.

In an effort to obtain additional, focused, qualitative feedback, OPCE partnered with our institution’s Digital Patient Experience (dPX) colleagues. The approach consisted of voluntary, semistructured, interview-type conversations with patients and family members who engaged in virtual visitation multiple times while the patient was hospitalized. OPCE contacted site-based Patient Experience leads, also known as Culture Leaders, at 3 hospitals, asking them to identify potential participants. This convenience sample excluded instances where the patient passed away during and/or immediately following hospitalization.

The OPCE team phoned potential interview candidates to make a personalized connection, explain the purpose of the interviews, and schedule them, if interested. For consistency, the same Digital Customer Experience Researcher on the dPX team facilitated all sessions, which were 30-minute, semiscripted interviews conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams. The tone was intentionally conversational so that patients and family members would feel comfortable delving into themes that were most impactful during their experience. After some initial ice breakers, such as “What were some of your feelings about being a patient/having a loved one in the hospital during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic?” we moved on to some more pragmatic, implementation questions and rating scales. These included questions such as “How did you first learn about the option for virtual visitation? Was it something you inquired about or did someone offer it to you? How was it explained to you?” Patients were also asked, on a scale of 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult), to rate their experience with the technology aspect when connecting with their loved ones. They also provided verbal consent to be recorded and were given a $15 gift card upon completion of the interview.

Transcriptions were generated by uploading the interview recordings to a platform called UserTesting. In addition to these transcriptions, this platform also allowed for a keyword mapping tool that organized high-level themes and adjectives into groupings along a sentiment axis from negative to neutral to positive. Transcripts were then read carefully and annotated by the Digital Customer Experience Researcher, which allowed for strengthening of some of the automated themes as well as the emergence of new, more nuanced themes. These themes were organized into those that we could address with design and/or procedure updates (actionable insights), those that came up most frequently overall (frequency), and those that came up across our 3 interview sessions (commonality).

This feedback, along with the responses to the new Press Ganey question, was presented to the system Voice of the Customer End User Device Workgroup. The results led to robust discussion and brainstorming regarding how to improve the process to be more patient-centered. Findings were also shared with our hospital-based Culture Leaders. As many of their local strategic plans focused on patient-family communication, this information was helpful to them in considering plans for expansion and/or sustaining virtual visitation efforts. The process map in the Figure outlines key milestones within this feedback loop.

Outcomes

During the height of the initial COVID-19 crisis, virtual visitation was a new and ever-evolving process. Amidst the chaos, mechanisms to capture the quantity and quality of virtual visits were not in place. Based on informal observation, a majority of patients utilized personal devices to connect with loved ones, and staff even offered their own cellular devices to facilitate timely patient-family communication. The technology primarily used included FaceTime, Zoom, and EZCall, as there was much public awareness and comfort with those platforms.

In the first quarter of 2021, our institution overall performed at a Top Box score of 60.2 for our ability to assist patients with staying connected to their family/caregiver during their inpatient visit. With more than 6700 returned surveys during that time period, our hospitals earned Top Box scores ranging between 48.0 and 75.3. At this time, obtaining a national benchmark ranking is not possible, because the question regarding connectedness is unique to Northwell inpatient settings. As other health care organizations adopt this customized question, further peer-to-peer measurements can be established.

Regarding virtual interviews, 25 patients were initially contacted to determine their interest in participating. Of that sample, 17 patients were engaged over the phone, representing a reach rate of 68%. Overall, 10 interviews were scheduled; 7 patients did not show up, resulting in 3 completed interviews. During follow-up, “no-show” participants either gave no response or stated they had a conflict at their originally scheduled time but were not interested in rescheduling due to personal circumstances. Through such conversations, ongoing health complications were found to be a reoccurring barrier to participation.

Each of the participating patients had experienced being placed on a ventilator. They described their hospitalization as a time of “confusion and despair” in the first days after extubation. After we reviewed interview recordings, a reoccurring theme across all interviews was the feeling of gratitude. Patients expressed deep and heartfelt appreciation for being given the opportunity to connect as a family. One patient described virtual visitation sessions as her “only tether to reality when nothing else made sense.”

Interestingly enough, none of the participants knew that virtual visitation was an option and/or thought to inquire about it before a hospital staff member offered to set up a session. Patients recounted how they were weak and physically unable to connect to the sessions without significant assistance. They reported examples of not having the physical strength to hold up the tablet or needing a staff member to facilitate the conversation because the patient could not speak loudly enough and/or they were having difficulty hearing over background medical equipment noises. Participants also described times when a nurse or social worker would stand and hold the tablet for 20 to 30 minutes at a time, further describing mixed feelings of gratitude, guilt for “taking up their time,” and a desire for more privacy to have those precious conversations.

Discussion

Our institution encountered various barriers when establishing, implementing, and sustaining virtual visitation. The acquisition and bulk purchasing of devices, so that each hospital unit and department had adequate par levels during a high-demand time frame, was an initial challenge. Ensuring appropriate safeguards, software programming, and access to WiFi required ingenuity from IT teams. Leaders sought to advocate for the importance of prioritizing virtual visitation alongside clinical interventions. For team members, education was needed to build awareness, learn how to navigate technology, and troubleshoot, in real-time, issues such as poor connectivity. However, despite these organizational struggles, the hospital’s frontline professionals fully recognized and understood the humanistic value of connecting ill patients with their loved ones. Harnessing their teamwork, empathy, and innovative spirits, they forged through such difficulties to create meaningful interactions.

Although virtual visitation occurred prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in subspecialty areas such as neonatal intensive care units,⁶ it was not commonplace in most adult inpatient care settings. However, now that virtual means to communication are widely accepted and preferred, our hospital anticipates these offerings will become a broad patient expectation and, therefore, part of standard hospital care and operations. Health care leaders and interdisciplinary teams must therefore prioritize virtual visitation protocols, efforts, and future programming. It is no longer an exception to the rule, but rather a critical approach when ensuring quality communication between patients, families, and care teams.

We strive to continually improve by including user feedback as part of an interactive design process. For a broader, more permanent installation of virtual visitation, health care organizations must proactively promote this capability as a valued option. Considering health literacy and comfort with technology, functionality, and logistics must be carefully explained to patients and their families. This may require additional staff training so that they are knowledgeable, comfortable with, and able to troubleshoot questions/concerns in real time. There needs to be an adequate number of mobile devices available at a unit or departmental level to meet short-term and long-term demands. Additionally, now that we have emerged from our initial crisis-based mentality, it is time to consider alternatives to alleviate the need for staff assistance, such as mounts to hold devices and enabling voice controls.

Conclusion

As an organization grounded in the spirit of innovation, Northwell has been able to quickly pivot, adopting virtual visitation to address emerging and complex communication needs. Taking a best practice established during a crisis period and engraining it into sustainable organizational culture and operations requires visionary leadership, strong teamwork, and an unbridled commitment to patient and family centeredness. Despite unprecedented challenges, our commitment to listening to the “voice” of patients and families never wavered. Using their insights and feedback as critical components to the decision-making process, there is much work ahead within the realm of virtual visitation.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the Northwell Health providers, frontline health care professionals, and team members who worked tirelessly to care for its community during initial COVID-19 waves and every day thereafter. Heartfelt gratitude to Northwell’s senior leaders for the visionary leadership; the OCIO and hospital-based IT teams for their swift collaboration; and dedicated Culture Leaders, Patient Experience team members, and redeployed staff for their unbridled passion for caring for patients and families. Special thanks to Agnes Barden, DNP, RN, CPXP, Joseph Narvaez, MBA, and Natalie Bashkin, MBA, from the system Office of Patient & Customer Experience, and Carolyne Burgess, MPH, from the Digital Patient Experience teams, for their participation, leadership, and syngeristic partnerships.

Corresponding Author: Nicole Giammarinaro, MSN, RN, CPXP, Director, Patient & Customer Experience, Northwell Health, 2000 Marcus Ave, Lake Success, NY 11042; nfilippa@northwell.edu.

Financial disclosures: Sven Gierlinger serves on the Speakers Bureau for Northwell Health and as an Executive Board Member for The Beryl Institute.

From Northwell Health, Lake Success, NY.

Objective: Northwell Health, New York’s largest health care organization, rapidly adopted technology solutions to support patient and family communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: This case series outlines the pragmatic, interdisciplinary approach Northwell underwent to rapidly implement patient virtual visitation processes during the peak of the initial crisis.

Results: Implementation of large-scale virtual visitation required leadership, technology, and dedicated, empathetic frontline professionals. Patient and family feedback uncovered varied feelings and perspectives, from confusion to gratitude.

Conclusion: Subsequent efforts to obtain direct patient and family perspectives and insights helped Northwell identify areas of strength and ongoing performance improvement.

Keywords: virtual visitation; COVID-19; technology; communication; patient experience.

The power of human connection has become increasingly apparent throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recovery phases. Due to the need for social distancing, people worldwide have turned to virtual means of communication, staying in touch with family, friends, and colleagues via digital technology platforms. On March 18, 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) issued a health advisory, suspending all hospital visitation.¹ As a result, hospitals rapidly transformed existing in-person visitation practices to meet large-scale virtual programming needs.

Family members often take on various roles—such as advocate, emotional support person, and postdischarge caregiver—for an ill or injured loved one.² The Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, a nonprofit organization founded in 1992, has been leading a cultural transformation where families are valued as care partners, as opposed to “visitors.”³ Although widely adopted and well-received in specialized units, such as neonatal intensive care units,⁴ virtual visitation had not been widely implemented across adult care settings. The NYSDOH guidance therefore required organizational leadership, innovation, flexibility, and systems ingenuity to meet the evolving needs of patients, families, and health care professionals. An overarching goal was ensuring patients and families were afforded opportunities to stay connected throughout hospitalization.

Reflecting the impact of COVID-19 surges, hospital environments became increasingly depersonalized, with health care providers wearing extensive personal protective equipment (PPE) and taking remarkable measures to socially distance and minimize exposure. Patients’ room doors were kept primarily closed, while codes and alerts blared in the halls overhead. The lack of families and visitors became increasingly obvious, aiding feelings of isolation and confinement. With fear of nosocomial transmission, impactful modalities (such as sitting at the bedside) and empathetic, therapeutic touch were no longer taking place.

With those scenarios—common to so many health care systems during the pandemic—as a backdrop, comes our experience. Northwell Health is the largest health care system in New York State, geographically spread throughout New York City’s 5 boroughs, Westchester County, and Long Island. With 23 hospitals, approximately 820 medical practices, and over 72 000 employees, Northwell has cared for more than 100 000 COVID-positive patients to date. This case series outlines a pragmatic approach to implementing virtual visitation during the initial peak and obtaining patient and family perspectives to help inform performance improvement and future programming.

Methods

Implementing virtual visitation

Through swift and focused multidisciplinary collaboration, numerous Northwell teams came together to implement large-scale virtual visitation across the organization during the first wave of the COVID crisis. The initial priority involved securing devices that could support patient-family communication. Prior to COVID, each facility had only a handful of tablets that were used primarily during leadership rounding, so once visitation was restricted, we needed a large quantity of devices within a matter of days. Through diligent work from System Procurement and internal Foundation, Northwell was able to acquire nearly 900 devices, including iPads, PadInMotion tablets, and Samsung tablets.

Typically, the benefits of using wireless tablets within a health care setting include long battery life, powerful data processing, advanced operating systems, large screens, and easy end-user navigation.⁴ During COVID-19 and its associated isolation precautions, tablets offered a lifeline for effective and socially distant communication. With new devices in hand, the system Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and site-based Information Technology (IT) teams were engaged. They worked tirelessly to streamline connectivity, download necessary apps, test devices on approved WiFi networks, and troubleshoot issues. Once set up, devices were strategically deployed across all Northwell hospitals and post-acute rehabilitation facilities.

Frontline teams quickly realized that a model similar to mobile proning teams, who focus solely on turning and positioning COVID patients to promote optimal respiratory ventilation,⁵ was needed to support virtual visitation. During the initial COVID wave, elective surgeries were not permissible, as per the NYSDOH. As a result, large numbers of clinical and nonclinical ambulatory surgery employees were redeployed throughout the organization, with many assigned and dedicated to facilitating newly created virtual visitation processes. These employees were primarily responsible for creating unit-based schedules, coordinating logistics, navigating devices on behalf of patients, being present during video calls, and sanitizing the devices between uses. Finally, if necessary, virtual interpretation services were used to overcome language barriers between staff and patients.

What began as an ad hoc function quickly became a valued and meaningful role. Utilizing triage mentality, virtual visitation was first offered during unit-based rounding protocols to those patients with the highest acuity and need to connect with family. We had no formal script; instead, unit-based leaders and frontline team members had open dialogues with patients and families to gauge their interest in virtual visitation. That included patients with an active end-of-life care plan, critically ill patients within intensive care units, and those soon to be intubated or recently extubated. Utilization also occurred within specialty areas such as labor and delivery, pediatrics, inpatient psychiatry, medical units, and long-term rehab facilities. Frontline teams appreciated the supplementary support so they could prioritize ongoing physical assessments and medical interventions. Donned in PPE, virtual visitation team members often served as physical extensions of the patient’s loved ones—holding their hand, offering prayers, and, at times, bearing witness to a last breath. In reflecting on that time, this role required absolute professionalism, empathy, and compassion.

In summer 2020, although demand for virtual visitation was still at an all-time high when ambulatory surgery was reinstated, redeployed staff returned to their responsibilities. To fill this void without interruption to patients and their families, site leaders quickly pivoted and refined processes and protocols utilizing Patient & Customer Experience and Hospitality department team members. Throughout spring 2021, the NYSDOH offered guidance to open in-person visitation, and the institution’s Clinical Advisory Group has been taking a pragmatic approach to doing that in a measured and safe manner across care settings.

Listening to the ‘voice’ of patients and families

Our institution’s mission is grounded in providing “quality service and patient-centered care.” Honoring those tenets, during the initial COVID wave, the system “Voice of the Customer End User Device Workgroup” was created with system and site-based interdisciplinary representation. Despite challenging and unprecedented times, conscious attention and effort was undertaken to assess the use and impact of virtual devices. One of the major work streams was to capture and examine patient and family thoughts, feedback, and the overall experience as it relates to virtual visitation.

The system Office of Patient & Customer Experience (OPCE), led by Sven Gierlinger, SVP Chief Experience Officer, reached out to our colleagues at Press Ganey to add a custom question to patient experience surveys. Beginning on December 1, 2020, discharged inpatients were asked to rate the “Degree to which you were able to stay connected with your family/caregiver during your stay.” Potential answers include the Likert scale responses of Always, Usually, Sometimes, and Never, with “Always” representing the Top Box score. The OPCE team believes these quantitative insights are important to track and trend, particularly since in-person and virtual visitation remain in constant flux.

In an effort to obtain additional, focused, qualitative feedback, OPCE partnered with our institution’s Digital Patient Experience (dPX) colleagues. The approach consisted of voluntary, semistructured, interview-type conversations with patients and family members who engaged in virtual visitation multiple times while the patient was hospitalized. OPCE contacted site-based Patient Experience leads, also known as Culture Leaders, at 3 hospitals, asking them to identify potential participants. This convenience sample excluded instances where the patient passed away during and/or immediately following hospitalization.

The OPCE team phoned potential interview candidates to make a personalized connection, explain the purpose of the interviews, and schedule them, if interested. For consistency, the same Digital Customer Experience Researcher on the dPX team facilitated all sessions, which were 30-minute, semiscripted interviews conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams. The tone was intentionally conversational so that patients and family members would feel comfortable delving into themes that were most impactful during their experience. After some initial ice breakers, such as “What were some of your feelings about being a patient/having a loved one in the hospital during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic?” we moved on to some more pragmatic, implementation questions and rating scales. These included questions such as “How did you first learn about the option for virtual visitation? Was it something you inquired about or did someone offer it to you? How was it explained to you?” Patients were also asked, on a scale of 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult), to rate their experience with the technology aspect when connecting with their loved ones. They also provided verbal consent to be recorded and were given a $15 gift card upon completion of the interview.

Transcriptions were generated by uploading the interview recordings to a platform called UserTesting. In addition to these transcriptions, this platform also allowed for a keyword mapping tool that organized high-level themes and adjectives into groupings along a sentiment axis from negative to neutral to positive. Transcripts were then read carefully and annotated by the Digital Customer Experience Researcher, which allowed for strengthening of some of the automated themes as well as the emergence of new, more nuanced themes. These themes were organized into those that we could address with design and/or procedure updates (actionable insights), those that came up most frequently overall (frequency), and those that came up across our 3 interview sessions (commonality).

This feedback, along with the responses to the new Press Ganey question, was presented to the system Voice of the Customer End User Device Workgroup. The results led to robust discussion and brainstorming regarding how to improve the process to be more patient-centered. Findings were also shared with our hospital-based Culture Leaders. As many of their local strategic plans focused on patient-family communication, this information was helpful to them in considering plans for expansion and/or sustaining virtual visitation efforts. The process map in the Figure outlines key milestones within this feedback loop.

Outcomes

During the height of the initial COVID-19 crisis, virtual visitation was a new and ever-evolving process. Amidst the chaos, mechanisms to capture the quantity and quality of virtual visits were not in place. Based on informal observation, a majority of patients utilized personal devices to connect with loved ones, and staff even offered their own cellular devices to facilitate timely patient-family communication. The technology primarily used included FaceTime, Zoom, and EZCall, as there was much public awareness and comfort with those platforms.

In the first quarter of 2021, our institution overall performed at a Top Box score of 60.2 for our ability to assist patients with staying connected to their family/caregiver during their inpatient visit. With more than 6700 returned surveys during that time period, our hospitals earned Top Box scores ranging between 48.0 and 75.3. At this time, obtaining a national benchmark ranking is not possible, because the question regarding connectedness is unique to Northwell inpatient settings. As other health care organizations adopt this customized question, further peer-to-peer measurements can be established.

Regarding virtual interviews, 25 patients were initially contacted to determine their interest in participating. Of that sample, 17 patients were engaged over the phone, representing a reach rate of 68%. Overall, 10 interviews were scheduled; 7 patients did not show up, resulting in 3 completed interviews. During follow-up, “no-show” participants either gave no response or stated they had a conflict at their originally scheduled time but were not interested in rescheduling due to personal circumstances. Through such conversations, ongoing health complications were found to be a reoccurring barrier to participation.

Each of the participating patients had experienced being placed on a ventilator. They described their hospitalization as a time of “confusion and despair” in the first days after extubation. After we reviewed interview recordings, a reoccurring theme across all interviews was the feeling of gratitude. Patients expressed deep and heartfelt appreciation for being given the opportunity to connect as a family. One patient described virtual visitation sessions as her “only tether to reality when nothing else made sense.”

Interestingly enough, none of the participants knew that virtual visitation was an option and/or thought to inquire about it before a hospital staff member offered to set up a session. Patients recounted how they were weak and physically unable to connect to the sessions without significant assistance. They reported examples of not having the physical strength to hold up the tablet or needing a staff member to facilitate the conversation because the patient could not speak loudly enough and/or they were having difficulty hearing over background medical equipment noises. Participants also described times when a nurse or social worker would stand and hold the tablet for 20 to 30 minutes at a time, further describing mixed feelings of gratitude, guilt for “taking up their time,” and a desire for more privacy to have those precious conversations.

Discussion

Our institution encountered various barriers when establishing, implementing, and sustaining virtual visitation. The acquisition and bulk purchasing of devices, so that each hospital unit and department had adequate par levels during a high-demand time frame, was an initial challenge. Ensuring appropriate safeguards, software programming, and access to WiFi required ingenuity from IT teams. Leaders sought to advocate for the importance of prioritizing virtual visitation alongside clinical interventions. For team members, education was needed to build awareness, learn how to navigate technology, and troubleshoot, in real-time, issues such as poor connectivity. However, despite these organizational struggles, the hospital’s frontline professionals fully recognized and understood the humanistic value of connecting ill patients with their loved ones. Harnessing their teamwork, empathy, and innovative spirits, they forged through such difficulties to create meaningful interactions.

Although virtual visitation occurred prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in subspecialty areas such as neonatal intensive care units,⁶ it was not commonplace in most adult inpatient care settings. However, now that virtual means to communication are widely accepted and preferred, our hospital anticipates these offerings will become a broad patient expectation and, therefore, part of standard hospital care and operations. Health care leaders and interdisciplinary teams must therefore prioritize virtual visitation protocols, efforts, and future programming. It is no longer an exception to the rule, but rather a critical approach when ensuring quality communication between patients, families, and care teams.

We strive to continually improve by including user feedback as part of an interactive design process. For a broader, more permanent installation of virtual visitation, health care organizations must proactively promote this capability as a valued option. Considering health literacy and comfort with technology, functionality, and logistics must be carefully explained to patients and their families. This may require additional staff training so that they are knowledgeable, comfortable with, and able to troubleshoot questions/concerns in real time. There needs to be an adequate number of mobile devices available at a unit or departmental level to meet short-term and long-term demands. Additionally, now that we have emerged from our initial crisis-based mentality, it is time to consider alternatives to alleviate the need for staff assistance, such as mounts to hold devices and enabling voice controls.

Conclusion

As an organization grounded in the spirit of innovation, Northwell has been able to quickly pivot, adopting virtual visitation to address emerging and complex communication needs. Taking a best practice established during a crisis period and engraining it into sustainable organizational culture and operations requires visionary leadership, strong teamwork, and an unbridled commitment to patient and family centeredness. Despite unprecedented challenges, our commitment to listening to the “voice” of patients and families never wavered. Using their insights and feedback as critical components to the decision-making process, there is much work ahead within the realm of virtual visitation.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the Northwell Health providers, frontline health care professionals, and team members who worked tirelessly to care for its community during initial COVID-19 waves and every day thereafter. Heartfelt gratitude to Northwell’s senior leaders for the visionary leadership; the OCIO and hospital-based IT teams for their swift collaboration; and dedicated Culture Leaders, Patient Experience team members, and redeployed staff for their unbridled passion for caring for patients and families. Special thanks to Agnes Barden, DNP, RN, CPXP, Joseph Narvaez, MBA, and Natalie Bashkin, MBA, from the system Office of Patient & Customer Experience, and Carolyne Burgess, MPH, from the Digital Patient Experience teams, for their participation, leadership, and syngeristic partnerships.

Corresponding Author: Nicole Giammarinaro, MSN, RN, CPXP, Director, Patient & Customer Experience, Northwell Health, 2000 Marcus Ave, Lake Success, NY 11042; nfilippa@northwell.edu.

Financial disclosures: Sven Gierlinger serves on the Speakers Bureau for Northwell Health and as an Executive Board Member for The Beryl Institute.

From Northwell Health, Lake Success, NY.

Objective: Northwell Health, New York’s largest health care organization, rapidly adopted technology solutions to support patient and family communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: This case series outlines the pragmatic, interdisciplinary approach Northwell underwent to rapidly implement patient virtual visitation processes during the peak of the initial crisis.

Results: Implementation of large-scale virtual visitation required leadership, technology, and dedicated, empathetic frontline professionals. Patient and family feedback uncovered varied feelings and perspectives, from confusion to gratitude.

Conclusion: Subsequent efforts to obtain direct patient and family perspectives and insights helped Northwell identify areas of strength and ongoing performance improvement.

Keywords: virtual visitation; COVID-19; technology; communication; patient experience.

The power of human connection has become increasingly apparent throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recovery phases. Due to the need for social distancing, people worldwide have turned to virtual means of communication, staying in touch with family, friends, and colleagues via digital technology platforms. On March 18, 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) issued a health advisory, suspending all hospital visitation.¹ As a result, hospitals rapidly transformed existing in-person visitation practices to meet large-scale virtual programming needs.

Family members often take on various roles—such as advocate, emotional support person, and postdischarge caregiver—for an ill or injured loved one.² The Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, a nonprofit organization founded in 1992, has been leading a cultural transformation where families are valued as care partners, as opposed to “visitors.”³ Although widely adopted and well-received in specialized units, such as neonatal intensive care units,⁴ virtual visitation had not been widely implemented across adult care settings. The NYSDOH guidance therefore required organizational leadership, innovation, flexibility, and systems ingenuity to meet the evolving needs of patients, families, and health care professionals. An overarching goal was ensuring patients and families were afforded opportunities to stay connected throughout hospitalization.

Reflecting the impact of COVID-19 surges, hospital environments became increasingly depersonalized, with health care providers wearing extensive personal protective equipment (PPE) and taking remarkable measures to socially distance and minimize exposure. Patients’ room doors were kept primarily closed, while codes and alerts blared in the halls overhead. The lack of families and visitors became increasingly obvious, aiding feelings of isolation and confinement. With fear of nosocomial transmission, impactful modalities (such as sitting at the bedside) and empathetic, therapeutic touch were no longer taking place.

With those scenarios—common to so many health care systems during the pandemic—as a backdrop, comes our experience. Northwell Health is the largest health care system in New York State, geographically spread throughout New York City’s 5 boroughs, Westchester County, and Long Island. With 23 hospitals, approximately 820 medical practices, and over 72 000 employees, Northwell has cared for more than 100 000 COVID-positive patients to date. This case series outlines a pragmatic approach to implementing virtual visitation during the initial peak and obtaining patient and family perspectives to help inform performance improvement and future programming.

Methods

Implementing virtual visitation

Through swift and focused multidisciplinary collaboration, numerous Northwell teams came together to implement large-scale virtual visitation across the organization during the first wave of the COVID crisis. The initial priority involved securing devices that could support patient-family communication. Prior to COVID, each facility had only a handful of tablets that were used primarily during leadership rounding, so once visitation was restricted, we needed a large quantity of devices within a matter of days. Through diligent work from System Procurement and internal Foundation, Northwell was able to acquire nearly 900 devices, including iPads, PadInMotion tablets, and Samsung tablets.

Typically, the benefits of using wireless tablets within a health care setting include long battery life, powerful data processing, advanced operating systems, large screens, and easy end-user navigation.⁴ During COVID-19 and its associated isolation precautions, tablets offered a lifeline for effective and socially distant communication. With new devices in hand, the system Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and site-based Information Technology (IT) teams were engaged. They worked tirelessly to streamline connectivity, download necessary apps, test devices on approved WiFi networks, and troubleshoot issues. Once set up, devices were strategically deployed across all Northwell hospitals and post-acute rehabilitation facilities.

Frontline teams quickly realized that a model similar to mobile proning teams, who focus solely on turning and positioning COVID patients to promote optimal respiratory ventilation,⁵ was needed to support virtual visitation. During the initial COVID wave, elective surgeries were not permissible, as per the NYSDOH. As a result, large numbers of clinical and nonclinical ambulatory surgery employees were redeployed throughout the organization, with many assigned and dedicated to facilitating newly created virtual visitation processes. These employees were primarily responsible for creating unit-based schedules, coordinating logistics, navigating devices on behalf of patients, being present during video calls, and sanitizing the devices between uses. Finally, if necessary, virtual interpretation services were used to overcome language barriers between staff and patients.

What began as an ad hoc function quickly became a valued and meaningful role. Utilizing triage mentality, virtual visitation was first offered during unit-based rounding protocols to those patients with the highest acuity and need to connect with family. We had no formal script; instead, unit-based leaders and frontline team members had open dialogues with patients and families to gauge their interest in virtual visitation. That included patients with an active end-of-life care plan, critically ill patients within intensive care units, and those soon to be intubated or recently extubated. Utilization also occurred within specialty areas such as labor and delivery, pediatrics, inpatient psychiatry, medical units, and long-term rehab facilities. Frontline teams appreciated the supplementary support so they could prioritize ongoing physical assessments and medical interventions. Donned in PPE, virtual visitation team members often served as physical extensions of the patient’s loved ones—holding their hand, offering prayers, and, at times, bearing witness to a last breath. In reflecting on that time, this role required absolute professionalism, empathy, and compassion.

In summer 2020, although demand for virtual visitation was still at an all-time high when ambulatory surgery was reinstated, redeployed staff returned to their responsibilities. To fill this void without interruption to patients and their families, site leaders quickly pivoted and refined processes and protocols utilizing Patient & Customer Experience and Hospitality department team members. Throughout spring 2021, the NYSDOH offered guidance to open in-person visitation, and the institution’s Clinical Advisory Group has been taking a pragmatic approach to doing that in a measured and safe manner across care settings.

Listening to the ‘voice’ of patients and families

Our institution’s mission is grounded in providing “quality service and patient-centered care.” Honoring those tenets, during the initial COVID wave, the system “Voice of the Customer End User Device Workgroup” was created with system and site-based interdisciplinary representation. Despite challenging and unprecedented times, conscious attention and effort was undertaken to assess the use and impact of virtual devices. One of the major work streams was to capture and examine patient and family thoughts, feedback, and the overall experience as it relates to virtual visitation.

The system Office of Patient & Customer Experience (OPCE), led by Sven Gierlinger, SVP Chief Experience Officer, reached out to our colleagues at Press Ganey to add a custom question to patient experience surveys. Beginning on December 1, 2020, discharged inpatients were asked to rate the “Degree to which you were able to stay connected with your family/caregiver during your stay.” Potential answers include the Likert scale responses of Always, Usually, Sometimes, and Never, with “Always” representing the Top Box score. The OPCE team believes these quantitative insights are important to track and trend, particularly since in-person and virtual visitation remain in constant flux.

In an effort to obtain additional, focused, qualitative feedback, OPCE partnered with our institution’s Digital Patient Experience (dPX) colleagues. The approach consisted of voluntary, semistructured, interview-type conversations with patients and family members who engaged in virtual visitation multiple times while the patient was hospitalized. OPCE contacted site-based Patient Experience leads, also known as Culture Leaders, at 3 hospitals, asking them to identify potential participants. This convenience sample excluded instances where the patient passed away during and/or immediately following hospitalization.

The OPCE team phoned potential interview candidates to make a personalized connection, explain the purpose of the interviews, and schedule them, if interested. For consistency, the same Digital Customer Experience Researcher on the dPX team facilitated all sessions, which were 30-minute, semiscripted interviews conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams. The tone was intentionally conversational so that patients and family members would feel comfortable delving into themes that were most impactful during their experience. After some initial ice breakers, such as “What were some of your feelings about being a patient/having a loved one in the hospital during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic?” we moved on to some more pragmatic, implementation questions and rating scales. These included questions such as “How did you first learn about the option for virtual visitation? Was it something you inquired about or did someone offer it to you? How was it explained to you?” Patients were also asked, on a scale of 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult), to rate their experience with the technology aspect when connecting with their loved ones. They also provided verbal consent to be recorded and were given a $15 gift card upon completion of the interview.

Transcriptions were generated by uploading the interview recordings to a platform called UserTesting. In addition to these transcriptions, this platform also allowed for a keyword mapping tool that organized high-level themes and adjectives into groupings along a sentiment axis from negative to neutral to positive. Transcripts were then read carefully and annotated by the Digital Customer Experience Researcher, which allowed for strengthening of some of the automated themes as well as the emergence of new, more nuanced themes. These themes were organized into those that we could address with design and/or procedure updates (actionable insights), those that came up most frequently overall (frequency), and those that came up across our 3 interview sessions (commonality).

This feedback, along with the responses to the new Press Ganey question, was presented to the system Voice of the Customer End User Device Workgroup. The results led to robust discussion and brainstorming regarding how to improve the process to be more patient-centered. Findings were also shared with our hospital-based Culture Leaders. As many of their local strategic plans focused on patient-family communication, this information was helpful to them in considering plans for expansion and/or sustaining virtual visitation efforts. The process map in the Figure outlines key milestones within this feedback loop.

Outcomes

During the height of the initial COVID-19 crisis, virtual visitation was a new and ever-evolving process. Amidst the chaos, mechanisms to capture the quantity and quality of virtual visits were not in place. Based on informal observation, a majority of patients utilized personal devices to connect with loved ones, and staff even offered their own cellular devices to facilitate timely patient-family communication. The technology primarily used included FaceTime, Zoom, and EZCall, as there was much public awareness and comfort with those platforms.

In the first quarter of 2021, our institution overall performed at a Top Box score of 60.2 for our ability to assist patients with staying connected to their family/caregiver during their inpatient visit. With more than 6700 returned surveys during that time period, our hospitals earned Top Box scores ranging between 48.0 and 75.3. At this time, obtaining a national benchmark ranking is not possible, because the question regarding connectedness is unique to Northwell inpatient settings. As other health care organizations adopt this customized question, further peer-to-peer measurements can be established.

Regarding virtual interviews, 25 patients were initially contacted to determine their interest in participating. Of that sample, 17 patients were engaged over the phone, representing a reach rate of 68%. Overall, 10 interviews were scheduled; 7 patients did not show up, resulting in 3 completed interviews. During follow-up, “no-show” participants either gave no response or stated they had a conflict at their originally scheduled time but were not interested in rescheduling due to personal circumstances. Through such conversations, ongoing health complications were found to be a reoccurring barrier to participation.

Each of the participating patients had experienced being placed on a ventilator. They described their hospitalization as a time of “confusion and despair” in the first days after extubation. After we reviewed interview recordings, a reoccurring theme across all interviews was the feeling of gratitude. Patients expressed deep and heartfelt appreciation for being given the opportunity to connect as a family. One patient described virtual visitation sessions as her “only tether to reality when nothing else made sense.”

Interestingly enough, none of the participants knew that virtual visitation was an option and/or thought to inquire about it before a hospital staff member offered to set up a session. Patients recounted how they were weak and physically unable to connect to the sessions without significant assistance. They reported examples of not having the physical strength to hold up the tablet or needing a staff member to facilitate the conversation because the patient could not speak loudly enough and/or they were having difficulty hearing over background medical equipment noises. Participants also described times when a nurse or social worker would stand and hold the tablet for 20 to 30 minutes at a time, further describing mixed feelings of gratitude, guilt for “taking up their time,” and a desire for more privacy to have those precious conversations.

Discussion

Our institution encountered various barriers when establishing, implementing, and sustaining virtual visitation. The acquisition and bulk purchasing of devices, so that each hospital unit and department had adequate par levels during a high-demand time frame, was an initial challenge. Ensuring appropriate safeguards, software programming, and access to WiFi required ingenuity from IT teams. Leaders sought to advocate for the importance of prioritizing virtual visitation alongside clinical interventions. For team members, education was needed to build awareness, learn how to navigate technology, and troubleshoot, in real-time, issues such as poor connectivity. However, despite these organizational struggles, the hospital’s frontline professionals fully recognized and understood the humanistic value of connecting ill patients with their loved ones. Harnessing their teamwork, empathy, and innovative spirits, they forged through such difficulties to create meaningful interactions.

Although virtual visitation occurred prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in subspecialty areas such as neonatal intensive care units,⁶ it was not commonplace in most adult inpatient care settings. However, now that virtual means to communication are widely accepted and preferred, our hospital anticipates these offerings will become a broad patient expectation and, therefore, part of standard hospital care and operations. Health care leaders and interdisciplinary teams must therefore prioritize virtual visitation protocols, efforts, and future programming. It is no longer an exception to the rule, but rather a critical approach when ensuring quality communication between patients, families, and care teams.

We strive to continually improve by including user feedback as part of an interactive design process. For a broader, more permanent installation of virtual visitation, health care organizations must proactively promote this capability as a valued option. Considering health literacy and comfort with technology, functionality, and logistics must be carefully explained to patients and their families. This may require additional staff training so that they are knowledgeable, comfortable with, and able to troubleshoot questions/concerns in real time. There needs to be an adequate number of mobile devices available at a unit or departmental level to meet short-term and long-term demands. Additionally, now that we have emerged from our initial crisis-based mentality, it is time to consider alternatives to alleviate the need for staff assistance, such as mounts to hold devices and enabling voice controls.

Conclusion

As an organization grounded in the spirit of innovation, Northwell has been able to quickly pivot, adopting virtual visitation to address emerging and complex communication needs. Taking a best practice established during a crisis period and engraining it into sustainable organizational culture and operations requires visionary leadership, strong teamwork, and an unbridled commitment to patient and family centeredness. Despite unprecedented challenges, our commitment to listening to the “voice” of patients and families never wavered. Using their insights and feedback as critical components to the decision-making process, there is much work ahead within the realm of virtual visitation.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the Northwell Health providers, frontline health care professionals, and team members who worked tirelessly to care for its community during initial COVID-19 waves and every day thereafter. Heartfelt gratitude to Northwell’s senior leaders for the visionary leadership; the OCIO and hospital-based IT teams for their swift collaboration; and dedicated Culture Leaders, Patient Experience team members, and redeployed staff for their unbridled passion for caring for patients and families. Special thanks to Agnes Barden, DNP, RN, CPXP, Joseph Narvaez, MBA, and Natalie Bashkin, MBA, from the system Office of Patient & Customer Experience, and Carolyne Burgess, MPH, from the Digital Patient Experience teams, for their participation, leadership, and syngeristic partnerships.

Corresponding Author: Nicole Giammarinaro, MSN, RN, CPXP, Director, Patient & Customer Experience, Northwell Health, 2000 Marcus Ave, Lake Success, NY 11042; nfilippa@northwell.edu.

Financial disclosures: Sven Gierlinger serves on the Speakers Bureau for Northwell Health and as an Executive Board Member for The Beryl Institute.

From Health Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Dr. Virji and Aisha Al Hamiz), Public Health, Abu Dhabi Public Health Center, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Drs. Al Hajeri, Al Shehhi, Al Memari, and Ahlam Al Maskari), College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Department of Medicine, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Dr. Alhajri), Public Health Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, and the MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England (Dr. Ali).

Objective: The pandemic has forced closures of primary schools, resulting in loss of learning time on a global scale. In addition to face coverings, social distancing, and hand hygiene, an efficient testing method is important to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in schools. We evaluated the feasibility of a saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing program among 18 primary schools in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Qualitative results show that children 4 to 5 years old had difficulty producing an adequate saliva specimen compared to those 6 to 12 years old.

Methods: A short training video on saliva collection beforehand helps demystify the process for students and parents alike. Informed consent was challenging yet should be done beforehand by school health nurses or other medical professionals to reassure parents and maximize participation.

Results: Telephone interviews with school administrators resulted in an 83% response rate. Overall, 93% of school administrators had a positive experience with saliva testing and felt the program improved the safety of their schools. The ongoing use of saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2 was supported by 73% of respondents.

Conclusion: On-campus saliva testing is a feasible option for primary schools to screen for COVID-19 in their student population to help keep their campuses safe and open for learning.

Keywords: COVID-19; saliva testing; mitigation; primary school.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and continues to exhaust health care resources on a large scale.¹ Efficient testing is critical to identify cases early and to help mitigate the deleterious effects of the pandemic.² Saliva polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is more comfortable than nasopharyngeal (NP) NAAT and has been validated as a test for SARS-CoV-2.¹ Although children are less susceptible to severe disease, primary schools are considered a vector for transmission and community spread.³ Efficient and scalable methods of routine testing are needed globally to help keep schools open. Saliva testing has proven a useful resource for this population.^4,5

Abu Dhabi is the largest Emirate in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with an estimated population of 2.5 million.⁶ The first case of COVID-19 was discovered in the UAE on January 29, 2020.⁷ The UAE has been recognized worldwide for its robust pandemic response. Along with the coordinated and swift application of public health measures, the country has one of the highest COVID-19 testing rates per capita and one of the highest vaccination rates worldwide.^8,9 The Abu Dhabi Public Health Center (ADPHC) works alongside the Ministry of Education (MOE) to establish testing, quarantine, and general safety guidelines for primary schools. In December 2020, the ADPHC partnered with a local, accredited diagnostic laboratory to test the feasibility of a saliva-based screening program for COVID-19 directly on school campuses for 18 primary schools in the Emirate.

Saliva-based PCR testing for COVID-19 was approved for use in schools in the UAE on January 24, 2021.¹⁰ As part of a greater mitigation strategy to reduce both school-based transmission and, hence, community spread, the ADPHC focused its on-site testing program on children aged 4 to 12 years. The program required collaboration among medical professionals, school administrators and teachers, students, and parents. Our study evaluates the feasibility of implementing a saliva-based COVID-19 screening program directly on primary school campuses involving children as young as 4 years of age.

Methods

The ADPHC, in collaboration with G42 Biogenix Labs, conducted a saliva SARS-CoV-2 NAAT testing program in 18 primary schools in the Emirate. Schools were selected based on outbreak prevalence at the time and focused on “hot spot” areas. The school on-site saliva testing program included children aged 4 to 12 years old in a “bubble” attendance model during the school day. This model involved children being assigned to groups or “pods.” This allowed us to limit a potential outbreak to a single pod, as opposed to risk exposing the entire school, should a single student test positive. The well-established SalivaDirect protocol developed at Yale University was used for testing and included an RNA extraction-free, RT-qPCR method for SARS-CoV-2 detection.¹¹

We conducted a qualitative study involving telephone interviews of school administrators to evaluate their experience with the ADPHC testing program at their schools. In addition, we interviewed the G42 Biogenix Lab providers to understand the logistics that supported on-campus collection of saliva specimens for this age group. We also gathered the attitudes of school children before and after testing. This study was reviewed and approved by the Abu Dhabi Health Research and Technology Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB), New York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD).

Sample and recruitment

The original sample collection of saliva specimens was performed by the ADPHC in collaboration with G42 Biogenix Lab providers on school campuses between December 6 and December 10, 2020. During this time, schools operated in a hybrid teaching model, where learning took place both online and in person. Infection control measures were deployed based on ADPHC standards and guidelines. Nurses utilized appropriate patient protective equipment, frequent hand hygiene, and social distancing during the collection process. Inclusion criteria included asymptomatic students aged 4 to 12 years attending in-person classes on campus. Students with respiratory symptoms who were asked to stay home or those not attending in-person classes were excluded.

 

 

Data collection

Data with regard to school children’s attitudes before and after testing were compiled through an online survey sent randomly to participants postintervention. Data from school administrators were collected through video and telephone interviews between April 14 and April 29, 2021. We first interviewed G42 Biogenix Lab providers to obtain previously acquired qualitative and quantitative data, which were collected during the intervention itself. After obtaining this information, we designed a questionnaire and proceeded with a structured interview process for school officials.

We interviewed school principals and administrators to collect their overall experiences with the saliva testing program. Before starting each interview, we established the interviewees preferred language, either English or Arabic. We then introduced the meeting attendees and provided study details, aims, and objectives, and described collaborating entities. We obtained verbal informed consent from a script approved by the NYUAD IRB and then proceeded with the interview, which included 4 questions. The first 3 questions were answered on a 5-point Likert scale model that consisted of 5 answer options: 5 being completely agree, 4 agree, 3 somewhat agree, 2 somewhat disagree, and 1 completely disagree. The fourth question invited open-ended feedback and comments on the following statements:

1. I believe the COVID-19 saliva testing program improved the safety for my school campus.
2. Our community had an overall positive experience with the COVID saliva testing.
3. We would like to continue a saliva-based COVID testing program on our school campus.
4. Please provide any additional comments you feel important about the program.

During the interview, we transcribed the answers as the interviewee was answering. We then translated those in Arabic into English and collected the data in 1 Excel spreadsheet. School interviewees and school names were de-identified in the collection and storage process.

Results

A total of 2011 saliva samples were collected from 18 different primary school campuses. Samples were sent the same day to G42 Biogenix Labs in Abu Dhabi for COVID PCR testing. A team consisting of 5 doctors providing general oversight, along with 2 to 6 nurses per site, were able to manage the collection process for all 18 school campuses. Samples were collected between 8 am and 2 pm and required variation among sites depending on factors such as staff availability and class schedules. Additional scheduling challenges included compliance with public safety mandates involving the maintenance of defined “safety bubbles” that forbid certain personnel from moving between floors, and the avoidance of mixing students from different classes.

Sample stations were set up in either the school auditorium or gymnasium to ensure appropriate crowd control and ventilation. Teachers and other school staff, including public safety, were able to manage lines and the shuttling of students back and forth from classes to testing stations, which allowed medical staff to focus on sample collection.

Informed consent was obtained by prior electronic communication to parents from school staff, asking them to agree to allow their child to participate in the testing program. Informed consent was identified as a challenge: Getting parents to understand that saliva testing was more comfortable than NP testing, and that the results were only being used to help keep the school safe, took time. School staff are used to obtaining consent from parents for field trips, but this was clearly more challenging for them.

The saliva collection process per child took more time than expected. Children fasted for 45 minutes before saliva collection. We used an active drool technique, which required children to pool saliva in their mouth then express it into a collection tube. Adults can generally do this on command, but we found it took 10 to 12 minutes per child. Saliva production was cued by asking the children to think about food, and by showing them pictures and TV commercials depicting food. Children 4 to 5 years old had more difficulty with the process despite active cueing, while those 6 to 12 years old had an easier time with the process. We collected data on a cohort of 80 children regarding their attitudes pre (Figure 1) and post collection (Figure 2). Children felt happier, less nervous, and less scared after collection than before collection. This trend reassured us that future collections would be easier for students.

A total of 15 of 18 school principals completed the telephone interview, yielding a response rate of 83%. Overall, 93% of the school principals agreed or completely agreed that the COVID-19 saliva testing program improved school safety; 93% agreed or completely agreed that they had an overall positive experience with the program; and 73% supported the ongoing use of saliva testing in their schools (Table 1). Administrators’ open-ended comments on their experience were positive overall (Table 2).

Discussion

By March 2020, many kindergarten to grade 12 public and private schools suspended in-person classes due to the pandemic and turned to online learning platforms. The negative impact of school closures on academic achievement is projected to be significant.^7,12,13 Ensuring schools can stay open and run operations safely will require routine SARS-CoV-2 testing. Our study investigated the feasibility of routine saliva testing on children aged 4 to 12 years on their school campuses. The ADPHC school on-site saliva testing program involved bringing lab providers onto 18 primary school campuses and required cooperation among parents, students, school administrators, and health care professionals.

Children younger than 6 years had difficulty producing an adequate saliva specimen, whereas those 6 to 12 years did so with relative ease when cued by thoughts or pictures of food while waiting in line for collection. Schools considering on-site testing programs should consider the age range of 6 to 12 years as a viable age range for saliva screening. Children should fast for a minimum of 45 minutes prior to saliva collection and should be cued by thoughts of food, food pictures, or food commercials. Setting up a sampling station close to the cafeteria where students can smell meal preparation may also help.^14,15 Sampling before breakfast or lunch, when children are potentially at their hungriest, should also be considered.

The greatest challenge was obtaining informed consent from parents who were not yet familiar with the reliability of saliva testing as a tool for SARS-CoV-2 screening or with the saliva collection process as a whole. Informed consent was initially done electronically, lacking direct human interaction to answer parents’ questions. Parents who refused had a follow-up call from the school nurse to further explain the logistics and rationale for saliva screening. Having medical professionals directly answer parents’ questions was helpful. Parents were reassured that the process was painless, confidential, and only to be used for school safety purposes. Despite school administrators being experienced in obtaining consent from parents for field trips, obtaining informed consent for a medical testing procedure is more complicated, and parents aren’t accustomed to providing such consent in a school environment. Schools considering on-site testing should ensure that their school nurse or other health care providers are on the front line obtaining informed consent and allaying parents’ fears.

School staff were able to effectively provide crowd control for testing, and children felt at ease being in a familiar environment. Teachers and public safety officers are well-equipped at managing the shuttling of students to class, to lunch, to physical education, and, finally, to dismissal. They were equally equipped at handling the logistics of students to and from testing, including minimizing crowds and helping students feel at ease during the process. This effective collaboration allowed the lab personnel to focus on sample collection and storage, while school staff managed all other aspects of the children’s safety and care.

Conclusion

Overall, school administrators had a positive experience with the testing program, felt the program improved the safety of their schools, and supported the ongoing use of saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2 on their school campuses. Children aged 6 years and older were able to provide adequate saliva samples, and children felt happier and less nervous after the process, indicating repeatability. Our findings highlight the feasibility of an integrated on-site saliva testing model for primary school campuses. Further research is needed to determine the scalability of such a model and whether the added compliance and safety of on-site testing compensates for the potential loss of learning time that testing during school hours would require.

Corresponding author: Ayaz Virji, MD, New York University Abu Dhabi, PO Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; av102@nyu.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

From Health Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Dr. Virji and Aisha Al Hamiz), Public Health, Abu Dhabi Public Health Center, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Drs. Al Hajeri, Al Shehhi, Al Memari, and Ahlam Al Maskari), College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Department of Medicine, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Dr. Alhajri), Public Health Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, and the MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England (Dr. Ali).

Objective: The pandemic has forced closures of primary schools, resulting in loss of learning time on a global scale. In addition to face coverings, social distancing, and hand hygiene, an efficient testing method is important to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in schools. We evaluated the feasibility of a saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing program among 18 primary schools in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Qualitative results show that children 4 to 5 years old had difficulty producing an adequate saliva specimen compared to those 6 to 12 years old.

Methods: A short training video on saliva collection beforehand helps demystify the process for students and parents alike. Informed consent was challenging yet should be done beforehand by school health nurses or other medical professionals to reassure parents and maximize participation.

Results: Telephone interviews with school administrators resulted in an 83% response rate. Overall, 93% of school administrators had a positive experience with saliva testing and felt the program improved the safety of their schools. The ongoing use of saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2 was supported by 73% of respondents.

Conclusion: On-campus saliva testing is a feasible option for primary schools to screen for COVID-19 in their student population to help keep their campuses safe and open for learning.

Keywords: COVID-19; saliva testing; mitigation; primary school.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and continues to exhaust health care resources on a large scale.¹ Efficient testing is critical to identify cases early and to help mitigate the deleterious effects of the pandemic.² Saliva polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is more comfortable than nasopharyngeal (NP) NAAT and has been validated as a test for SARS-CoV-2.¹ Although children are less susceptible to severe disease, primary schools are considered a vector for transmission and community spread.³ Efficient and scalable methods of routine testing are needed globally to help keep schools open. Saliva testing has proven a useful resource for this population.^4,5

Abu Dhabi is the largest Emirate in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with an estimated population of 2.5 million.⁶ The first case of COVID-19 was discovered in the UAE on January 29, 2020.⁷ The UAE has been recognized worldwide for its robust pandemic response. Along with the coordinated and swift application of public health measures, the country has one of the highest COVID-19 testing rates per capita and one of the highest vaccination rates worldwide.^8,9 The Abu Dhabi Public Health Center (ADPHC) works alongside the Ministry of Education (MOE) to establish testing, quarantine, and general safety guidelines for primary schools. In December 2020, the ADPHC partnered with a local, accredited diagnostic laboratory to test the feasibility of a saliva-based screening program for COVID-19 directly on school campuses for 18 primary schools in the Emirate.

Saliva-based PCR testing for COVID-19 was approved for use in schools in the UAE on January 24, 2021.¹⁰ As part of a greater mitigation strategy to reduce both school-based transmission and, hence, community spread, the ADPHC focused its on-site testing program on children aged 4 to 12 years. The program required collaboration among medical professionals, school administrators and teachers, students, and parents. Our study evaluates the feasibility of implementing a saliva-based COVID-19 screening program directly on primary school campuses involving children as young as 4 years of age.

Methods

The ADPHC, in collaboration with G42 Biogenix Labs, conducted a saliva SARS-CoV-2 NAAT testing program in 18 primary schools in the Emirate. Schools were selected based on outbreak prevalence at the time and focused on “hot spot” areas. The school on-site saliva testing program included children aged 4 to 12 years old in a “bubble” attendance model during the school day. This model involved children being assigned to groups or “pods.” This allowed us to limit a potential outbreak to a single pod, as opposed to risk exposing the entire school, should a single student test positive. The well-established SalivaDirect protocol developed at Yale University was used for testing and included an RNA extraction-free, RT-qPCR method for SARS-CoV-2 detection.¹¹

We conducted a qualitative study involving telephone interviews of school administrators to evaluate their experience with the ADPHC testing program at their schools. In addition, we interviewed the G42 Biogenix Lab providers to understand the logistics that supported on-campus collection of saliva specimens for this age group. We also gathered the attitudes of school children before and after testing. This study was reviewed and approved by the Abu Dhabi Health Research and Technology Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB), New York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD).

Sample and recruitment

The original sample collection of saliva specimens was performed by the ADPHC in collaboration with G42 Biogenix Lab providers on school campuses between December 6 and December 10, 2020. During this time, schools operated in a hybrid teaching model, where learning took place both online and in person. Infection control measures were deployed based on ADPHC standards and guidelines. Nurses utilized appropriate patient protective equipment, frequent hand hygiene, and social distancing during the collection process. Inclusion criteria included asymptomatic students aged 4 to 12 years attending in-person classes on campus. Students with respiratory symptoms who were asked to stay home or those not attending in-person classes were excluded.

 

 

Data collection

Data with regard to school children’s attitudes before and after testing were compiled through an online survey sent randomly to participants postintervention. Data from school administrators were collected through video and telephone interviews between April 14 and April 29, 2021. We first interviewed G42 Biogenix Lab providers to obtain previously acquired qualitative and quantitative data, which were collected during the intervention itself. After obtaining this information, we designed a questionnaire and proceeded with a structured interview process for school officials.

We interviewed school principals and administrators to collect their overall experiences with the saliva testing program. Before starting each interview, we established the interviewees preferred language, either English or Arabic. We then introduced the meeting attendees and provided study details, aims, and objectives, and described collaborating entities. We obtained verbal informed consent from a script approved by the NYUAD IRB and then proceeded with the interview, which included 4 questions. The first 3 questions were answered on a 5-point Likert scale model that consisted of 5 answer options: 5 being completely agree, 4 agree, 3 somewhat agree, 2 somewhat disagree, and 1 completely disagree. The fourth question invited open-ended feedback and comments on the following statements:

1. I believe the COVID-19 saliva testing program improved the safety for my school campus.
2. Our community had an overall positive experience with the COVID saliva testing.
3. We would like to continue a saliva-based COVID testing program on our school campus.
4. Please provide any additional comments you feel important about the program.

During the interview, we transcribed the answers as the interviewee was answering. We then translated those in Arabic into English and collected the data in 1 Excel spreadsheet. School interviewees and school names were de-identified in the collection and storage process.

Results

A total of 2011 saliva samples were collected from 18 different primary school campuses. Samples were sent the same day to G42 Biogenix Labs in Abu Dhabi for COVID PCR testing. A team consisting of 5 doctors providing general oversight, along with 2 to 6 nurses per site, were able to manage the collection process for all 18 school campuses. Samples were collected between 8 am and 2 pm and required variation among sites depending on factors such as staff availability and class schedules. Additional scheduling challenges included compliance with public safety mandates involving the maintenance of defined “safety bubbles” that forbid certain personnel from moving between floors, and the avoidance of mixing students from different classes.

Sample stations were set up in either the school auditorium or gymnasium to ensure appropriate crowd control and ventilation. Teachers and other school staff, including public safety, were able to manage lines and the shuttling of students back and forth from classes to testing stations, which allowed medical staff to focus on sample collection.

Informed consent was obtained by prior electronic communication to parents from school staff, asking them to agree to allow their child to participate in the testing program. Informed consent was identified as a challenge: Getting parents to understand that saliva testing was more comfortable than NP testing, and that the results were only being used to help keep the school safe, took time. School staff are used to obtaining consent from parents for field trips, but this was clearly more challenging for them.

The saliva collection process per child took more time than expected. Children fasted for 45 minutes before saliva collection. We used an active drool technique, which required children to pool saliva in their mouth then express it into a collection tube. Adults can generally do this on command, but we found it took 10 to 12 minutes per child. Saliva production was cued by asking the children to think about food, and by showing them pictures and TV commercials depicting food. Children 4 to 5 years old had more difficulty with the process despite active cueing, while those 6 to 12 years old had an easier time with the process. We collected data on a cohort of 80 children regarding their attitudes pre (Figure 1) and post collection (Figure 2). Children felt happier, less nervous, and less scared after collection than before collection. This trend reassured us that future collections would be easier for students.

A total of 15 of 18 school principals completed the telephone interview, yielding a response rate of 83%. Overall, 93% of the school principals agreed or completely agreed that the COVID-19 saliva testing program improved school safety; 93% agreed or completely agreed that they had an overall positive experience with the program; and 73% supported the ongoing use of saliva testing in their schools (Table 1). Administrators’ open-ended comments on their experience were positive overall (Table 2).

Discussion

By March 2020, many kindergarten to grade 12 public and private schools suspended in-person classes due to the pandemic and turned to online learning platforms. The negative impact of school closures on academic achievement is projected to be significant.^7,12,13 Ensuring schools can stay open and run operations safely will require routine SARS-CoV-2 testing. Our study investigated the feasibility of routine saliva testing on children aged 4 to 12 years on their school campuses. The ADPHC school on-site saliva testing program involved bringing lab providers onto 18 primary school campuses and required cooperation among parents, students, school administrators, and health care professionals.

Children younger than 6 years had difficulty producing an adequate saliva specimen, whereas those 6 to 12 years did so with relative ease when cued by thoughts or pictures of food while waiting in line for collection. Schools considering on-site testing programs should consider the age range of 6 to 12 years as a viable age range for saliva screening. Children should fast for a minimum of 45 minutes prior to saliva collection and should be cued by thoughts of food, food pictures, or food commercials. Setting up a sampling station close to the cafeteria where students can smell meal preparation may also help.^14,15 Sampling before breakfast or lunch, when children are potentially at their hungriest, should also be considered.

The greatest challenge was obtaining informed consent from parents who were not yet familiar with the reliability of saliva testing as a tool for SARS-CoV-2 screening or with the saliva collection process as a whole. Informed consent was initially done electronically, lacking direct human interaction to answer parents’ questions. Parents who refused had a follow-up call from the school nurse to further explain the logistics and rationale for saliva screening. Having medical professionals directly answer parents’ questions was helpful. Parents were reassured that the process was painless, confidential, and only to be used for school safety purposes. Despite school administrators being experienced in obtaining consent from parents for field trips, obtaining informed consent for a medical testing procedure is more complicated, and parents aren’t accustomed to providing such consent in a school environment. Schools considering on-site testing should ensure that their school nurse or other health care providers are on the front line obtaining informed consent and allaying parents’ fears.

School staff were able to effectively provide crowd control for testing, and children felt at ease being in a familiar environment. Teachers and public safety officers are well-equipped at managing the shuttling of students to class, to lunch, to physical education, and, finally, to dismissal. They were equally equipped at handling the logistics of students to and from testing, including minimizing crowds and helping students feel at ease during the process. This effective collaboration allowed the lab personnel to focus on sample collection and storage, while school staff managed all other aspects of the children’s safety and care.

Conclusion

Overall, school administrators had a positive experience with the testing program, felt the program improved the safety of their schools, and supported the ongoing use of saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2 on their school campuses. Children aged 6 years and older were able to provide adequate saliva samples, and children felt happier and less nervous after the process, indicating repeatability. Our findings highlight the feasibility of an integrated on-site saliva testing model for primary school campuses. Further research is needed to determine the scalability of such a model and whether the added compliance and safety of on-site testing compensates for the potential loss of learning time that testing during school hours would require.

Corresponding author: Ayaz Virji, MD, New York University Abu Dhabi, PO Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; av102@nyu.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

From Health Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Dr. Virji and Aisha Al Hamiz), Public Health, Abu Dhabi Public Health Center, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Drs. Al Hajeri, Al Shehhi, Al Memari, and Ahlam Al Maskari), College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Department of Medicine, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Dr. Alhajri), Public Health Research Center, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, and the MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England (Dr. Ali).

Objective: The pandemic has forced closures of primary schools, resulting in loss of learning time on a global scale. In addition to face coverings, social distancing, and hand hygiene, an efficient testing method is important to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in schools. We evaluated the feasibility of a saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing program among 18 primary schools in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Qualitative results show that children 4 to 5 years old had difficulty producing an adequate saliva specimen compared to those 6 to 12 years old.

Methods: A short training video on saliva collection beforehand helps demystify the process for students and parents alike. Informed consent was challenging yet should be done beforehand by school health nurses or other medical professionals to reassure parents and maximize participation.

Results: Telephone interviews with school administrators resulted in an 83% response rate. Overall, 93% of school administrators had a positive experience with saliva testing and felt the program improved the safety of their schools. The ongoing use of saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2 was supported by 73% of respondents.

Conclusion: On-campus saliva testing is a feasible option for primary schools to screen for COVID-19 in their student population to help keep their campuses safe and open for learning.

Keywords: COVID-19; saliva testing; mitigation; primary school.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and continues to exhaust health care resources on a large scale.¹ Efficient testing is critical to identify cases early and to help mitigate the deleterious effects of the pandemic.² Saliva polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is more comfortable than nasopharyngeal (NP) NAAT and has been validated as a test for SARS-CoV-2.¹ Although children are less susceptible to severe disease, primary schools are considered a vector for transmission and community spread.³ Efficient and scalable methods of routine testing are needed globally to help keep schools open. Saliva testing has proven a useful resource for this population.^4,5

Abu Dhabi is the largest Emirate in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with an estimated population of 2.5 million.⁶ The first case of COVID-19 was discovered in the UAE on January 29, 2020.⁷ The UAE has been recognized worldwide for its robust pandemic response. Along with the coordinated and swift application of public health measures, the country has one of the highest COVID-19 testing rates per capita and one of the highest vaccination rates worldwide.^8,9 The Abu Dhabi Public Health Center (ADPHC) works alongside the Ministry of Education (MOE) to establish testing, quarantine, and general safety guidelines for primary schools. In December 2020, the ADPHC partnered with a local, accredited diagnostic laboratory to test the feasibility of a saliva-based screening program for COVID-19 directly on school campuses for 18 primary schools in the Emirate.

Saliva-based PCR testing for COVID-19 was approved for use in schools in the UAE on January 24, 2021.¹⁰ As part of a greater mitigation strategy to reduce both school-based transmission and, hence, community spread, the ADPHC focused its on-site testing program on children aged 4 to 12 years. The program required collaboration among medical professionals, school administrators and teachers, students, and parents. Our study evaluates the feasibility of implementing a saliva-based COVID-19 screening program directly on primary school campuses involving children as young as 4 years of age.

Methods

The ADPHC, in collaboration with G42 Biogenix Labs, conducted a saliva SARS-CoV-2 NAAT testing program in 18 primary schools in the Emirate. Schools were selected based on outbreak prevalence at the time and focused on “hot spot” areas. The school on-site saliva testing program included children aged 4 to 12 years old in a “bubble” attendance model during the school day. This model involved children being assigned to groups or “pods.” This allowed us to limit a potential outbreak to a single pod, as opposed to risk exposing the entire school, should a single student test positive. The well-established SalivaDirect protocol developed at Yale University was used for testing and included an RNA extraction-free, RT-qPCR method for SARS-CoV-2 detection.¹¹

We conducted a qualitative study involving telephone interviews of school administrators to evaluate their experience with the ADPHC testing program at their schools. In addition, we interviewed the G42 Biogenix Lab providers to understand the logistics that supported on-campus collection of saliva specimens for this age group. We also gathered the attitudes of school children before and after testing. This study was reviewed and approved by the Abu Dhabi Health Research and Technology Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB), New York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD).

Sample and recruitment

The original sample collection of saliva specimens was performed by the ADPHC in collaboration with G42 Biogenix Lab providers on school campuses between December 6 and December 10, 2020. During this time, schools operated in a hybrid teaching model, where learning took place both online and in person. Infection control measures were deployed based on ADPHC standards and guidelines. Nurses utilized appropriate patient protective equipment, frequent hand hygiene, and social distancing during the collection process. Inclusion criteria included asymptomatic students aged 4 to 12 years attending in-person classes on campus. Students with respiratory symptoms who were asked to stay home or those not attending in-person classes were excluded.

 

 

Data collection

Data with regard to school children’s attitudes before and after testing were compiled through an online survey sent randomly to participants postintervention. Data from school administrators were collected through video and telephone interviews between April 14 and April 29, 2021. We first interviewed G42 Biogenix Lab providers to obtain previously acquired qualitative and quantitative data, which were collected during the intervention itself. After obtaining this information, we designed a questionnaire and proceeded with a structured interview process for school officials.

We interviewed school principals and administrators to collect their overall experiences with the saliva testing program. Before starting each interview, we established the interviewees preferred language, either English or Arabic. We then introduced the meeting attendees and provided study details, aims, and objectives, and described collaborating entities. We obtained verbal informed consent from a script approved by the NYUAD IRB and then proceeded with the interview, which included 4 questions. The first 3 questions were answered on a 5-point Likert scale model that consisted of 5 answer options: 5 being completely agree, 4 agree, 3 somewhat agree, 2 somewhat disagree, and 1 completely disagree. The fourth question invited open-ended feedback and comments on the following statements:

1. I believe the COVID-19 saliva testing program improved the safety for my school campus.
2. Our community had an overall positive experience with the COVID saliva testing.
3. We would like to continue a saliva-based COVID testing program on our school campus.
4. Please provide any additional comments you feel important about the program.

During the interview, we transcribed the answers as the interviewee was answering. We then translated those in Arabic into English and collected the data in 1 Excel spreadsheet. School interviewees and school names were de-identified in the collection and storage process.

Results

A total of 2011 saliva samples were collected from 18 different primary school campuses. Samples were sent the same day to G42 Biogenix Labs in Abu Dhabi for COVID PCR testing. A team consisting of 5 doctors providing general oversight, along with 2 to 6 nurses per site, were able to manage the collection process for all 18 school campuses. Samples were collected between 8 am and 2 pm and required variation among sites depending on factors such as staff availability and class schedules. Additional scheduling challenges included compliance with public safety mandates involving the maintenance of defined “safety bubbles” that forbid certain personnel from moving between floors, and the avoidance of mixing students from different classes.

Sample stations were set up in either the school auditorium or gymnasium to ensure appropriate crowd control and ventilation. Teachers and other school staff, including public safety, were able to manage lines and the shuttling of students back and forth from classes to testing stations, which allowed medical staff to focus on sample collection.

Informed consent was obtained by prior electronic communication to parents from school staff, asking them to agree to allow their child to participate in the testing program. Informed consent was identified as a challenge: Getting parents to understand that saliva testing was more comfortable than NP testing, and that the results were only being used to help keep the school safe, took time. School staff are used to obtaining consent from parents for field trips, but this was clearly more challenging for them.

The saliva collection process per child took more time than expected. Children fasted for 45 minutes before saliva collection. We used an active drool technique, which required children to pool saliva in their mouth then express it into a collection tube. Adults can generally do this on command, but we found it took 10 to 12 minutes per child. Saliva production was cued by asking the children to think about food, and by showing them pictures and TV commercials depicting food. Children 4 to 5 years old had more difficulty with the process despite active cueing, while those 6 to 12 years old had an easier time with the process. We collected data on a cohort of 80 children regarding their attitudes pre (Figure 1) and post collection (Figure 2). Children felt happier, less nervous, and less scared after collection than before collection. This trend reassured us that future collections would be easier for students.

A total of 15 of 18 school principals completed the telephone interview, yielding a response rate of 83%. Overall, 93% of the school principals agreed or completely agreed that the COVID-19 saliva testing program improved school safety; 93% agreed or completely agreed that they had an overall positive experience with the program; and 73% supported the ongoing use of saliva testing in their schools (Table 1). Administrators’ open-ended comments on their experience were positive overall (Table 2).

Discussion

By March 2020, many kindergarten to grade 12 public and private schools suspended in-person classes due to the pandemic and turned to online learning platforms. The negative impact of school closures on academic achievement is projected to be significant.^7,12,13 Ensuring schools can stay open and run operations safely will require routine SARS-CoV-2 testing. Our study investigated the feasibility of routine saliva testing on children aged 4 to 12 years on their school campuses. The ADPHC school on-site saliva testing program involved bringing lab providers onto 18 primary school campuses and required cooperation among parents, students, school administrators, and health care professionals.

Children younger than 6 years had difficulty producing an adequate saliva specimen, whereas those 6 to 12 years did so with relative ease when cued by thoughts or pictures of food while waiting in line for collection. Schools considering on-site testing programs should consider the age range of 6 to 12 years as a viable age range for saliva screening. Children should fast for a minimum of 45 minutes prior to saliva collection and should be cued by thoughts of food, food pictures, or food commercials. Setting up a sampling station close to the cafeteria where students can smell meal preparation may also help.^14,15 Sampling before breakfast or lunch, when children are potentially at their hungriest, should also be considered.

The greatest challenge was obtaining informed consent from parents who were not yet familiar with the reliability of saliva testing as a tool for SARS-CoV-2 screening or with the saliva collection process as a whole. Informed consent was initially done electronically, lacking direct human interaction to answer parents’ questions. Parents who refused had a follow-up call from the school nurse to further explain the logistics and rationale for saliva screening. Having medical professionals directly answer parents’ questions was helpful. Parents were reassured that the process was painless, confidential, and only to be used for school safety purposes. Despite school administrators being experienced in obtaining consent from parents for field trips, obtaining informed consent for a medical testing procedure is more complicated, and parents aren’t accustomed to providing such consent in a school environment. Schools considering on-site testing should ensure that their school nurse or other health care providers are on the front line obtaining informed consent and allaying parents’ fears.

School staff were able to effectively provide crowd control for testing, and children felt at ease being in a familiar environment. Teachers and public safety officers are well-equipped at managing the shuttling of students to class, to lunch, to physical education, and, finally, to dismissal. They were equally equipped at handling the logistics of students to and from testing, including minimizing crowds and helping students feel at ease during the process. This effective collaboration allowed the lab personnel to focus on sample collection and storage, while school staff managed all other aspects of the children’s safety and care.

Conclusion

Overall, school administrators had a positive experience with the testing program, felt the program improved the safety of their schools, and supported the ongoing use of saliva testing for SARS-CoV-2 on their school campuses. Children aged 6 years and older were able to provide adequate saliva samples, and children felt happier and less nervous after the process, indicating repeatability. Our findings highlight the feasibility of an integrated on-site saliva testing model for primary school campuses. Further research is needed to determine the scalability of such a model and whether the added compliance and safety of on-site testing compensates for the potential loss of learning time that testing during school hours would require.

Corresponding author: Ayaz Virji, MD, New York University Abu Dhabi, PO Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; av102@nyu.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

While sick at home with a 26-day symptomatic course of COVID-19 in March 2020, I watched the surge unfold in my state and the hospital where I work as an inpatient adult medicine physician. Although the preponderance of my professional life is dedicated to leading teams in implementing delivery system transformation, the hat I wore in that moment involved living through and keeping up with the changes around me. Once I recovered and returned to the arena as a COVID doctor, I adapted to and made changes during constant shifts in how we provided care.

Looking back on those months during the worst of the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, I reflect on the factors that helped me, as a frontline and shift-work clinician, adapt to and make those changes. In reflecting on the elements that were meaningful to me during the crisis, I recognize a set of change-enabling factors that have broad relevance for those of us who work to improve outcomes for patients and populations.

Confidence engendered by liberating data

In the early days of the surge, there was much uncertainty, and unfortunately, some seriously imperfect messaging. Trust was broken or badly bruised for many frontline clinicians. I share this painful phase not to criticize, but rather reflect on what mattered to me during that crisis of confidence. It was data. Raw, unadjusted, best-available data. Produced and pushed out. Available, trended over time, telling the story of where we are, now. Counts of tests, beds, and ventilators. The consistent, transparent availability of relevant and straightforward data provided an active antidote to a sense of uncertainty during a crisis of confidence.

Personal practice change stimulated by relevance and urgency

For half a decade, I have been encouraging interdisciplinary inpatient teams to identify and actively engage the family and/or care partner as a member of the care team. Despite even the American Association of Retired Persons mobilizing an impressive regulatory approach in 32 states to require that family and/or care partners are included as such, the practice change efforts continued on a slow and steady path. Why? We just didn’t believe it was of urgent, relevant, mission-critical importance to our daily practice to do so. That all changed in March 2020.

Without needing to be told, educated, or incentivized, my first night as a COVID doctor found me calling every single patient’s family upon admission, regardless of what time it was. It was critical to review the diagnosis, transparently discuss the uncertainty regarding the upcoming hours and days, review the potential contingencies, and ask, right there and then, whether intubation is consistent with goals of care. It was that urgent and relevant. Without exception, families were grateful for the effort and candor.

The significance of this practice—undoubtedly adopted by every inpatient provider who has worked a COVID surge—is rooted in decades of academic deliberation on which is the “right” doctor to have these discussions. None of that mattered. Historical opinions changed due to what was urgent and relevant given the situation at hand and the job we had to do. Imagine, for example, what we could do and how we could change if we now consider it urgent and relevant to identify and mobilize enhanced services and supports to patients who experience inequities because we believe it to be mission-critical to the job we show up to do every day.

Change fostered by a creative problem-solving ecosystem

Embracing personal practice change was made easier and implicitly affirmed by the creative problem solving that occurred everywhere. Tents, drive-throughs, and even college field houses were now settings of care. Primary care physicians, cardiologists, and gastrointestinal (GI) and postanesthesia care nurses staffed the COVID floors. Rolling stands held iPads so staff could communicate with patients without entering the room. This creative ecosystem fostered individual practice change. No debates were needed to recognize that standard processes were inadequate. No single role or service of any discipline was singularly asked to change to meet the needs of the moment. Because of this ecosystem of creative, active change, there was a much greater flexibility among individuals, role types, departments, and disciplines to change. This is particularly poignant to me in light of the work I lead to improve care for patients who experience systemic inequities in our health care system. When we ask a single role type or discipline to change, it can be met with resistance; far more success is achieved when we engage an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental approach to change. When surrounded by others making change, it makes us more willing to change, too.

 

 

Change catalyzed teamwork

It is so often invoked that health care is a team sport. In practicality, while we may aspire to work as a team, health care delivery is still all too often comprised of a set of individual actors with individualized responsibilities trying to communicate the best they can with each other.

What I experienced during the surge at my hospital was the very best version of teamwork I have ever been a part of in health care: empathetic, mutually interdependent strangers coming together during daily changes in staffing, processes, and resources. I will never forget nights walking into the pediatric floor or day surgery recovery area—now repurposed as a COVID unit—to entirely new faces comprised of GI suite nurses, outpatient doctors, and moonlighting intensivists.

We were all new to each other, all new to working in this setting, and all new to whatever the newest changes of the day brought. I will never forget how we greeted each other and introduced ourselves. We asked each other where we were “from,” and held a genuine appreciation to each other for being there. Imagine how this impacted how we worked together. Looking back on those night shifts, I remember us as a truly interdependent team. I will endeavor to bring that sense of mutual regard and interdependency into my work to foster effective interdisciplinary and cross-continuum teamwork.

Takeaways

As a student and practitioner of delivery system transformation, I am often in conversations about imperfect data, incomplete evidence, and role-specific and organizational resistance to change. As an acute care provider during the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, the experiences I had as a participant in the COVID-related delivery system change will stay with me as I lead value-based delivery system change. What worked in an infectious disease crisis holds great relevance to our pressing, urgent, relevant work to create a more person-centered, equitable, and value-based delivery system.

I am confident that if those of us seeking to improve outcomes use visible and accessible data to engender confidence, clearly link practice change to the relevant and urgent issue at hand, promote broadly visible creative problem solving to foster an ecosystem of change, and cultivate empathy and mutual interdependence to promote the teamwork we aspire to have, that we will foster meaningful progress in our efforts to improve care for patients and populations.

Corresponding author: Amy Boutwell, MD, MPP, President, Collaborative Healthcare Strategies, Lexington, MA; amy@collaborativehealthcarestrategies.com.

Financial disclosures: None.

While sick at home with a 26-day symptomatic course of COVID-19 in March 2020, I watched the surge unfold in my state and the hospital where I work as an inpatient adult medicine physician. Although the preponderance of my professional life is dedicated to leading teams in implementing delivery system transformation, the hat I wore in that moment involved living through and keeping up with the changes around me. Once I recovered and returned to the arena as a COVID doctor, I adapted to and made changes during constant shifts in how we provided care.

Looking back on those months during the worst of the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, I reflect on the factors that helped me, as a frontline and shift-work clinician, adapt to and make those changes. In reflecting on the elements that were meaningful to me during the crisis, I recognize a set of change-enabling factors that have broad relevance for those of us who work to improve outcomes for patients and populations.

Confidence engendered by liberating data

In the early days of the surge, there was much uncertainty, and unfortunately, some seriously imperfect messaging. Trust was broken or badly bruised for many frontline clinicians. I share this painful phase not to criticize, but rather reflect on what mattered to me during that crisis of confidence. It was data. Raw, unadjusted, best-available data. Produced and pushed out. Available, trended over time, telling the story of where we are, now. Counts of tests, beds, and ventilators. The consistent, transparent availability of relevant and straightforward data provided an active antidote to a sense of uncertainty during a crisis of confidence.

Personal practice change stimulated by relevance and urgency

For half a decade, I have been encouraging interdisciplinary inpatient teams to identify and actively engage the family and/or care partner as a member of the care team. Despite even the American Association of Retired Persons mobilizing an impressive regulatory approach in 32 states to require that family and/or care partners are included as such, the practice change efforts continued on a slow and steady path. Why? We just didn’t believe it was of urgent, relevant, mission-critical importance to our daily practice to do so. That all changed in March 2020.

Without needing to be told, educated, or incentivized, my first night as a COVID doctor found me calling every single patient’s family upon admission, regardless of what time it was. It was critical to review the diagnosis, transparently discuss the uncertainty regarding the upcoming hours and days, review the potential contingencies, and ask, right there and then, whether intubation is consistent with goals of care. It was that urgent and relevant. Without exception, families were grateful for the effort and candor.

The significance of this practice—undoubtedly adopted by every inpatient provider who has worked a COVID surge—is rooted in decades of academic deliberation on which is the “right” doctor to have these discussions. None of that mattered. Historical opinions changed due to what was urgent and relevant given the situation at hand and the job we had to do. Imagine, for example, what we could do and how we could change if we now consider it urgent and relevant to identify and mobilize enhanced services and supports to patients who experience inequities because we believe it to be mission-critical to the job we show up to do every day.

Change fostered by a creative problem-solving ecosystem

Embracing personal practice change was made easier and implicitly affirmed by the creative problem solving that occurred everywhere. Tents, drive-throughs, and even college field houses were now settings of care. Primary care physicians, cardiologists, and gastrointestinal (GI) and postanesthesia care nurses staffed the COVID floors. Rolling stands held iPads so staff could communicate with patients without entering the room. This creative ecosystem fostered individual practice change. No debates were needed to recognize that standard processes were inadequate. No single role or service of any discipline was singularly asked to change to meet the needs of the moment. Because of this ecosystem of creative, active change, there was a much greater flexibility among individuals, role types, departments, and disciplines to change. This is particularly poignant to me in light of the work I lead to improve care for patients who experience systemic inequities in our health care system. When we ask a single role type or discipline to change, it can be met with resistance; far more success is achieved when we engage an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental approach to change. When surrounded by others making change, it makes us more willing to change, too.

 

 

Change catalyzed teamwork

It is so often invoked that health care is a team sport. In practicality, while we may aspire to work as a team, health care delivery is still all too often comprised of a set of individual actors with individualized responsibilities trying to communicate the best they can with each other.

What I experienced during the surge at my hospital was the very best version of teamwork I have ever been a part of in health care: empathetic, mutually interdependent strangers coming together during daily changes in staffing, processes, and resources. I will never forget nights walking into the pediatric floor or day surgery recovery area—now repurposed as a COVID unit—to entirely new faces comprised of GI suite nurses, outpatient doctors, and moonlighting intensivists.

We were all new to each other, all new to working in this setting, and all new to whatever the newest changes of the day brought. I will never forget how we greeted each other and introduced ourselves. We asked each other where we were “from,” and held a genuine appreciation to each other for being there. Imagine how this impacted how we worked together. Looking back on those night shifts, I remember us as a truly interdependent team. I will endeavor to bring that sense of mutual regard and interdependency into my work to foster effective interdisciplinary and cross-continuum teamwork.

Takeaways

As a student and practitioner of delivery system transformation, I am often in conversations about imperfect data, incomplete evidence, and role-specific and organizational resistance to change. As an acute care provider during the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, the experiences I had as a participant in the COVID-related delivery system change will stay with me as I lead value-based delivery system change. What worked in an infectious disease crisis holds great relevance to our pressing, urgent, relevant work to create a more person-centered, equitable, and value-based delivery system.

I am confident that if those of us seeking to improve outcomes use visible and accessible data to engender confidence, clearly link practice change to the relevant and urgent issue at hand, promote broadly visible creative problem solving to foster an ecosystem of change, and cultivate empathy and mutual interdependence to promote the teamwork we aspire to have, that we will foster meaningful progress in our efforts to improve care for patients and populations.

Corresponding author: Amy Boutwell, MD, MPP, President, Collaborative Healthcare Strategies, Lexington, MA; amy@collaborativehealthcarestrategies.com.

Financial disclosures: None.

While sick at home with a 26-day symptomatic course of COVID-19 in March 2020, I watched the surge unfold in my state and the hospital where I work as an inpatient adult medicine physician. Although the preponderance of my professional life is dedicated to leading teams in implementing delivery system transformation, the hat I wore in that moment involved living through and keeping up with the changes around me. Once I recovered and returned to the arena as a COVID doctor, I adapted to and made changes during constant shifts in how we provided care.

Looking back on those months during the worst of the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, I reflect on the factors that helped me, as a frontline and shift-work clinician, adapt to and make those changes. In reflecting on the elements that were meaningful to me during the crisis, I recognize a set of change-enabling factors that have broad relevance for those of us who work to improve outcomes for patients and populations.

Confidence engendered by liberating data

In the early days of the surge, there was much uncertainty, and unfortunately, some seriously imperfect messaging. Trust was broken or badly bruised for many frontline clinicians. I share this painful phase not to criticize, but rather reflect on what mattered to me during that crisis of confidence. It was data. Raw, unadjusted, best-available data. Produced and pushed out. Available, trended over time, telling the story of where we are, now. Counts of tests, beds, and ventilators. The consistent, transparent availability of relevant and straightforward data provided an active antidote to a sense of uncertainty during a crisis of confidence.

Personal practice change stimulated by relevance and urgency

For half a decade, I have been encouraging interdisciplinary inpatient teams to identify and actively engage the family and/or care partner as a member of the care team. Despite even the American Association of Retired Persons mobilizing an impressive regulatory approach in 32 states to require that family and/or care partners are included as such, the practice change efforts continued on a slow and steady path. Why? We just didn’t believe it was of urgent, relevant, mission-critical importance to our daily practice to do so. That all changed in March 2020.

Without needing to be told, educated, or incentivized, my first night as a COVID doctor found me calling every single patient’s family upon admission, regardless of what time it was. It was critical to review the diagnosis, transparently discuss the uncertainty regarding the upcoming hours and days, review the potential contingencies, and ask, right there and then, whether intubation is consistent with goals of care. It was that urgent and relevant. Without exception, families were grateful for the effort and candor.

The significance of this practice—undoubtedly adopted by every inpatient provider who has worked a COVID surge—is rooted in decades of academic deliberation on which is the “right” doctor to have these discussions. None of that mattered. Historical opinions changed due to what was urgent and relevant given the situation at hand and the job we had to do. Imagine, for example, what we could do and how we could change if we now consider it urgent and relevant to identify and mobilize enhanced services and supports to patients who experience inequities because we believe it to be mission-critical to the job we show up to do every day.

Change fostered by a creative problem-solving ecosystem

Embracing personal practice change was made easier and implicitly affirmed by the creative problem solving that occurred everywhere. Tents, drive-throughs, and even college field houses were now settings of care. Primary care physicians, cardiologists, and gastrointestinal (GI) and postanesthesia care nurses staffed the COVID floors. Rolling stands held iPads so staff could communicate with patients without entering the room. This creative ecosystem fostered individual practice change. No debates were needed to recognize that standard processes were inadequate. No single role or service of any discipline was singularly asked to change to meet the needs of the moment. Because of this ecosystem of creative, active change, there was a much greater flexibility among individuals, role types, departments, and disciplines to change. This is particularly poignant to me in light of the work I lead to improve care for patients who experience systemic inequities in our health care system. When we ask a single role type or discipline to change, it can be met with resistance; far more success is achieved when we engage an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental approach to change. When surrounded by others making change, it makes us more willing to change, too.

 

 

Change catalyzed teamwork

It is so often invoked that health care is a team sport. In practicality, while we may aspire to work as a team, health care delivery is still all too often comprised of a set of individual actors with individualized responsibilities trying to communicate the best they can with each other.

What I experienced during the surge at my hospital was the very best version of teamwork I have ever been a part of in health care: empathetic, mutually interdependent strangers coming together during daily changes in staffing, processes, and resources. I will never forget nights walking into the pediatric floor or day surgery recovery area—now repurposed as a COVID unit—to entirely new faces comprised of GI suite nurses, outpatient doctors, and moonlighting intensivists.

We were all new to each other, all new to working in this setting, and all new to whatever the newest changes of the day brought. I will never forget how we greeted each other and introduced ourselves. We asked each other where we were “from,” and held a genuine appreciation to each other for being there. Imagine how this impacted how we worked together. Looking back on those night shifts, I remember us as a truly interdependent team. I will endeavor to bring that sense of mutual regard and interdependency into my work to foster effective interdisciplinary and cross-continuum teamwork.

Takeaways

As a student and practitioner of delivery system transformation, I am often in conversations about imperfect data, incomplete evidence, and role-specific and organizational resistance to change. As an acute care provider during the COVID-19 hospital surge in my region, the experiences I had as a participant in the COVID-related delivery system change will stay with me as I lead value-based delivery system change. What worked in an infectious disease crisis holds great relevance to our pressing, urgent, relevant work to create a more person-centered, equitable, and value-based delivery system.

I am confident that if those of us seeking to improve outcomes use visible and accessible data to engender confidence, clearly link practice change to the relevant and urgent issue at hand, promote broadly visible creative problem solving to foster an ecosystem of change, and cultivate empathy and mutual interdependence to promote the teamwork we aspire to have, that we will foster meaningful progress in our efforts to improve care for patients and populations.

Corresponding author: Amy Boutwell, MD, MPP, President, Collaborative Healthcare Strategies, Lexington, MA; amy@collaborativehealthcarestrategies.com.

Financial disclosures: None.

Although Guillain-Barré syndrome may rarely follow a recent infection with SARS-CoV-2, a strong relationship of GBS with the novel coronavirus is unlikely, say researchers with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) consortium.

“Our study shows that COVID-19 may precede Guillain-Barré syndrome in rare cases, but the existence of a true association or causal relation still needs to be established,” Bart Jacobs, MD, PhD, department of neurology and immunology, Erasmus Medical Center and University Medical Center, both in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

The study was published online in the journal Brain.
 

No uptick in pandemic cases

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there are reports of more than 90 GBS diagnoses following a possible COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 is another potential infectious trigger or whether the reported cases are coincidental.

To investigate further, Dr. Jacobs and the IGOS consortium reviewed 49 patients (median age, 56 years) with GBS who were added to their ongoing prospective observational cohort study between Jan. 30 and May 30, 2020.

The patients came from China, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Of the 49 GBS patients, 8 (16%) had a confirmed and 3 (6%) had a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection; 15 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 had no suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2 were “unclassifiable.”

Of the 11 patients with confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 had no serological evidence of any other recent preceding infection known to be associated with GBS.

The other two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection, which could have played a role in GBS onset, the researchers noted.

Most patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a sensorimotor GBS variant (73%), although Miller Fisher syndrome–GBS overlap (18%) and an ataxic variant (9%) were also found.

All patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a severe form of GBS. Common early neurologic features were facial weakness (64%), sensory deficits (82%), and autonomic dysfunction (64%), although not significantly different, compared with the other patients.

All eight patients who underwent nerve conduction study had a demyelinating subtype, which was more frequent than in the other GBS patients (47%; P = .012) as well as historical region and age-matched controls included in the IGOS cohort before the pandemic (52%, P = .016).

The median time from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection to neurologic symptoms was 16 days and ranged from 12 to 22 days. 
 

More research needed

The researchers noted that the 22% frequency of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study population was “higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Importantly, however, they did not find more patients diagnosed with GBS during the first 4 months of the pandemic, compared with previous years, “suggesting that a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 and GBS is unlikely.”

“Should SARS-CoV-2 indeed be able to trigger GBS, our data are consistent with a postinfectious disease mechanism rather than direct viral invasion,” they noted, adding that the study was not designed to quantify a causative link between GBS and SARS-CoV-2. 

“An unbiased multicenter, international, case-control study is needed to determine whether there is an association or not,” they wrote.

The IGOS is financially supported by the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Gain, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Glasgow University, CSL Behring, Grifols, Annexon and Hansa Biopharma. Dr. Jacobs received grants from Grifols, CSL-Behring, Annexon, Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Hansa Biopharma, and GBS-CIDP Foundation International and is on the global medical advisory board of the GBS CIDP Foundation International.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although Guillain-Barré syndrome may rarely follow a recent infection with SARS-CoV-2, a strong relationship of GBS with the novel coronavirus is unlikely, say researchers with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) consortium.

“Our study shows that COVID-19 may precede Guillain-Barré syndrome in rare cases, but the existence of a true association or causal relation still needs to be established,” Bart Jacobs, MD, PhD, department of neurology and immunology, Erasmus Medical Center and University Medical Center, both in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

The study was published online in the journal Brain.
 

No uptick in pandemic cases

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there are reports of more than 90 GBS diagnoses following a possible COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 is another potential infectious trigger or whether the reported cases are coincidental.

To investigate further, Dr. Jacobs and the IGOS consortium reviewed 49 patients (median age, 56 years) with GBS who were added to their ongoing prospective observational cohort study between Jan. 30 and May 30, 2020.

The patients came from China, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Of the 49 GBS patients, 8 (16%) had a confirmed and 3 (6%) had a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection; 15 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 had no suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2 were “unclassifiable.”

Of the 11 patients with confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 had no serological evidence of any other recent preceding infection known to be associated with GBS.

The other two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection, which could have played a role in GBS onset, the researchers noted.

Most patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a sensorimotor GBS variant (73%), although Miller Fisher syndrome–GBS overlap (18%) and an ataxic variant (9%) were also found.

All patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a severe form of GBS. Common early neurologic features were facial weakness (64%), sensory deficits (82%), and autonomic dysfunction (64%), although not significantly different, compared with the other patients.

All eight patients who underwent nerve conduction study had a demyelinating subtype, which was more frequent than in the other GBS patients (47%; P = .012) as well as historical region and age-matched controls included in the IGOS cohort before the pandemic (52%, P = .016).

The median time from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection to neurologic symptoms was 16 days and ranged from 12 to 22 days. 
 

More research needed

The researchers noted that the 22% frequency of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study population was “higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Importantly, however, they did not find more patients diagnosed with GBS during the first 4 months of the pandemic, compared with previous years, “suggesting that a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 and GBS is unlikely.”

“Should SARS-CoV-2 indeed be able to trigger GBS, our data are consistent with a postinfectious disease mechanism rather than direct viral invasion,” they noted, adding that the study was not designed to quantify a causative link between GBS and SARS-CoV-2. 

“An unbiased multicenter, international, case-control study is needed to determine whether there is an association or not,” they wrote.

The IGOS is financially supported by the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Gain, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Glasgow University, CSL Behring, Grifols, Annexon and Hansa Biopharma. Dr. Jacobs received grants from Grifols, CSL-Behring, Annexon, Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Hansa Biopharma, and GBS-CIDP Foundation International and is on the global medical advisory board of the GBS CIDP Foundation International.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although Guillain-Barré syndrome may rarely follow a recent infection with SARS-CoV-2, a strong relationship of GBS with the novel coronavirus is unlikely, say researchers with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) consortium.

“Our study shows that COVID-19 may precede Guillain-Barré syndrome in rare cases, but the existence of a true association or causal relation still needs to be established,” Bart Jacobs, MD, PhD, department of neurology and immunology, Erasmus Medical Center and University Medical Center, both in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in a statement.

The study was published online in the journal Brain.
 

No uptick in pandemic cases

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there are reports of more than 90 GBS diagnoses following a possible COVID-19 infection. However, it remains unclear whether COVID-19 is another potential infectious trigger or whether the reported cases are coincidental.

To investigate further, Dr. Jacobs and the IGOS consortium reviewed 49 patients (median age, 56 years) with GBS who were added to their ongoing prospective observational cohort study between Jan. 30 and May 30, 2020.

The patients came from China, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Of the 49 GBS patients, 8 (16%) had a confirmed and 3 (6%) had a probable SARS-CoV-2 infection; 15 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 had no suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2 were “unclassifiable.”

Of the 11 patients with confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, 9 had no serological evidence of any other recent preceding infection known to be associated with GBS.

The other two had serological evidence of a recent Campylobacter jejuni infection, which could have played a role in GBS onset, the researchers noted.

Most patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a sensorimotor GBS variant (73%), although Miller Fisher syndrome–GBS overlap (18%) and an ataxic variant (9%) were also found.

All patients with a confirmed/probable SARS-CoV-2 infection had a severe form of GBS. Common early neurologic features were facial weakness (64%), sensory deficits (82%), and autonomic dysfunction (64%), although not significantly different, compared with the other patients.

All eight patients who underwent nerve conduction study had a demyelinating subtype, which was more frequent than in the other GBS patients (47%; P = .012) as well as historical region and age-matched controls included in the IGOS cohort before the pandemic (52%, P = .016).

The median time from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection to neurologic symptoms was 16 days and ranged from 12 to 22 days. 
 

More research needed

The researchers noted that the 22% frequency of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this study population was “higher than estimates of the contemporaneous background prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, which may be a result of recruitment bias during the pandemic, but could also indicate that GBS may rarely follow a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Importantly, however, they did not find more patients diagnosed with GBS during the first 4 months of the pandemic, compared with previous years, “suggesting that a strong association between SARS-CoV-2 and GBS is unlikely.”

“Should SARS-CoV-2 indeed be able to trigger GBS, our data are consistent with a postinfectious disease mechanism rather than direct viral invasion,” they noted, adding that the study was not designed to quantify a causative link between GBS and SARS-CoV-2. 

“An unbiased multicenter, international, case-control study is needed to determine whether there is an association or not,” they wrote.

The IGOS is financially supported by the GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Gain, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Glasgow University, CSL Behring, Grifols, Annexon and Hansa Biopharma. Dr. Jacobs received grants from Grifols, CSL-Behring, Annexon, Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Hansa Biopharma, and GBS-CIDP Foundation International and is on the global medical advisory board of the GBS CIDP Foundation International.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

jevans@mdedge.com

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

jevans@mdedge.com

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

jevans@mdedge.com

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.