Prevalence of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children and Adults in Marion County, Indiana.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Two community studies outside the US showed asymptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in adults, but not in children <10 years of age. In this study, we assessed the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adults in Marion County, Indiana. METHODS: Individuals living in Marion County with no symptoms of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) within seven days of enrollment were eligible for this cross-sectional household study. Study kits were delivered to the participant's residence for self-swabbing, picked up by the study team, and tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SAR-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Five hundred eleven nasal swabs were collected from 119 children and 392 adults ≥18 years of age. One participant (seven years of age) tested positive, for an overall study prevalence of 0.2% (95% CI 0, 0.6%). The participant had no known contact with a person with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and five family members tested negative for infection. The child and family members all tested negative for infection 10 and 20 days after the first test, and none developed symptoms of COVID-19 for 20 days after testing. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection can occur in children <10 years with no known COVID-19 exposure. Large cohort studies should be conducted to determine prevalence of asymptomatic infection and risk of transmission from asymptomatic infection in children and adults over time.

Field test results of a new ambulatory care Medication Error and Adverse Drug Event Reporting System--MEADERS.

PURPOSE: In this study, we developed and field tested the Medication Error and Adverse Drug Event Reporting System (MEADERS)-an easy-to-use, Web-based reporting system designed for busy office practices. METHODS: We conducted a 10-week field test of MEADERS in which 220 physicians and office staff from 24 practices reported medication errors and adverse drug events they observed during usual clinical care. The main outcomes were (1) use and acceptability of MEADERS measured with a postreporting survey and interviews with office managers and lead physicians, and (2) distributions of characteristics of the medication event reports. RESULTS: A total of 507 anonymous event reports were submitted. The mean reporting time was 4.3 minutes. Of these reports, 357 (70%) included medication errors only, 138 (27%) involved adverse drug events only, and 12 (2.4%) included both. Medication errors were roughly equally divided among ordering medications, implementing prescription orders, errors by patients receiving the medications, and documentation errors. The most frequent contributors to the medication errors and adverse drug events were communication problems (41%) and knowledge deficits (22%). Eight (1.6%) of the reported events led to hospitalization. Reporting raised staff and physician awareness of the kinds of errors that occur in office medication management; however, 36% agreed or strongly agreed that the event reporting "has increased the fear of repercussion in the practice." Time pressure was the main barrier to reporting. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible for primary care clinicians and office staff to report medication errors and adverse drug events to a Web-based reporting system. Time pressures and a punitive culture are barriers to event reporting that must be overcome. Further testing of MEADERS as a quality improvement tool is warranted.

A national survey of primary care practice-based research networks.

PURPOSE: Increasing numbers of primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are being developed in the United States to perform research relevant to everyday practice. To assess the current status and potential value of this resource, we surveyed US primary care PBRNs in operation from late 2003 to early 2004. METHODS: We performed a Web-based survey and structured interviews with PBRN directors and administrative officers, assessing PBRNs' history, size, location, organization, resources, operations, and productivity (funding obtained, studies performed, and articles published). RESULTS: Of 111 primary care PBRNs identified, 89 (80%) responded to the survey. The 86 (77%) meeting the criteria for primary care PBRNs contained 1,871 practices, 12,957 physicians (mean 152 per PBRN, median 100), and 14.7 million patients (mean 229,880 per PBRN, median 105,000). Minority and underinsured patients were overrepresented. The average PBRN was young (4.4 +/- 5.7 years): one-half had performed 3 or fewer studies. Three-quarters were affiliated with universities. Common research foci included prevention, diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors, and mental health. Respondent PBRNs had published more than 600 articles in peer-reviewed journals. PBRNs studying questions posed by outside researchers had more federal funding (84% vs 27%, P=.006). PBRNs citing funding as a weakness relied more on local resources to fund research projects (70% vs 40%, P=.036). CONCLUSIONS: American primary care PBRNs are mainly young, diverse, and pursuing a variety of research foci. Most have university links and provide a dynamic town-gown relationship that could be a vital national resource for improving primary care, translating research into practice, and meeting the National Institutes of Health Roadmap goals. PBRNs merit further attention from both private and public funding agencies and researchers interested in studying the delivery of primary care.

Infrastructure requirements for practice-based research networks.

BACKGROUND: The practice-based research network (PBRN) is the basic laboratory for primary care research. Although most PBRNs include some common elements, their infrastructures vary widely. We offer suggestions for developing and supporting infrastructures to enhance PBRN research success. METHODS: Information was compiled based on published articles, the PBRN Resource Center survey of 2003, our PBRN experiences, and discussions with directors and coordinators from other PBRNs. RESULTS: PBRN research ranges from observational studies, through intervention studies, clinical trials, and quality of care research, to large-scale practice change interventions. Basic infrastructure elements such as a membership roster, a board, a director, a coordinator, a news-sharing function, a means of addressing requirements of institutional review boards and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and a network meeting must exist to support these initiatives. Desirable elements such as support staff, electronic medical records, multiuser databases, mentoring and development programs, mock study sections, and research training are costly and difficult to sustain through project grant funds. These infrastructure elements must be selected, configured, and sized according to the PBRN's self-defined research mission. Annual infrastructure costs are estimated to range from $69,700 for a basic network to $287,600 for a moderately complex network. CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed and properly supported PBRN infrastructures can support a wide range of research of great direct value to patients and society. Increased and more consistent infrastructure support could generate an explosion of pragmatic, generalizable knowledge about currently understudied populations, settings, and health care problems.