Saliva as a diagnostic specimen for testing respiratory virus by a point-of-care molecular assay: a diagnostic validity study.

OBJECTIVES: Automated point-of-care molecular assays have greatly shortened the turnaround time of respiratory virus testing. One of the major bottlenecks now lies at the specimen collection step, especially in a busy clinical setting. Saliva is a convenient specimen type that can be provided easily by adult patients. This study assessed the diagnostic validity, specimen collection time and cost associated with the use of saliva. METHODS: This was a prospective diagnostic validity study comparing the detection rate of respiratory viruses between saliva and nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) among adult hospitalized patients using Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV. The cost and time associated with the collection of saliva and nasopharyngeal specimens were also estimated. RESULTS: Between July and October 2017, 214 patients were recruited. The overall agreement between saliva and NPA was 93.3% (196/210, κ 0.851, 95% CI 0.776-0.926). There was no significant difference in the detection rate of respiratory viruses between saliva and NPA (32.9% (69/210) versus 35.7% (75/210); p 0.146). The overall sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (81.9%-96.2%) and 100% (97.3%-100%), respectively, for saliva, and were 96.1% (88.9%-99.2%) and 98.5% (94.7%-99.8%), respectively, for NPA. The time and cost associated with the collection of saliva were 2.26-fold and 2.59-fold lower, respectively, than those of NPA. CONCLUSIONS: Saliva specimens have high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of respiratory viruses by an automated multiplex Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-waived point-of-care molecular assay when compared with those of NPA. The use of saliva also reduces the time and cost associated with specimen collection.

Hand-touch contact assessment of high-touch and mutual-touch surfaces among healthcare workers, patients, and visitors.

BACKGROUND: Unlike direct contact with patients' body, hand hygiene practice is often neglected by healthcare workers (HCWs) and visitors after contact with patients' environment. Contact with hospital environmental items may increase risk of pathogen transmission. AIM: To enumerate the number of hand-touch contacts by patients, HCWs and visitors with any hospital environmental items. METHODS: All contact-episodes between person and item were recorded by direct observation in a six-bed cubicle of acute wards for 33 working days. High-touch and mutual-touch items with high contact frequencies by HCWs, patients, and visitors were analysed. FINDINGS: In total, 1107 person-episodes with 6144 contact-episodes were observed in 66 observation hours (average: 16.8 person-episodes and 93.1 contact-episodes per hour). Eight of the top 10 high-touch items, including bedside rails, bedside tables, patients' bodies, patients' files, linen, bed curtains, bed frames, and lockers were mutually touched by HCWs, patients, and visitors. Bedside rails topped the list with 13.6 contact-episodes per hour (mean), followed by bedside tables (12.3 contact-episodes per hour). Using patients' body contacts as a reference, it was found that medical staff and nursing staff contacted bedside tables [rate ratio (RR): 1.741, 1.427, respectively] and patients' files (RR: 1.358, 1.324, respectively) more than patients' bodies, and nursing staff also contacted bedside rails (RR: 1.490) more than patients' bodies. CONCLUSION: Patients' surroundings may be links in the transmission of nosocomial infections because many are frequently touched and mutually contacted by HCWs, patients, and visitors. Therefore, the focus of hand hygiene education, environmental disinfection, and other system changes should be enhanced with respect to high-touch and mutual-touch items.