Qualitative study of Ebola screening at ports of entry to the UK

SARS-CoV-2 detection among international air travellers to Ghana during mandatory quarantine

Objectives

To determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 detection among international travellers to Ghana during mandatory quarantine.

Design

A retrospective cross-sectional study.

Setting

Air travellers to Ghana on 21^st and 22^nd March 2020.

Participants

On 21^st and 22^nd March 2020, a total of 1,030 returning international travellers were mandatorily quarantined in 15 different hotels in Accra and tested for SARS-CoV-2. All of these persons were included in the study.

Main outcome measure

Positivity for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction.

Results

The initial testing at the beginning of quarantine found 79 (7.7%) individuals to be positive for SARS-CoV-2. In the exit screening after 12 to 13 days of quarantine, it was discovered that 26 of those who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 in the initial screening subsequently tested positive.

Conclusions

Ghana likely averted an early community spread of COVID-19 through the proactive approach to quarantine international travellers during the early phase of the pandemic.

Funding

None

Assessing training needs in infectious disease management at major ports, airports and ground-crossings in Europe

BACKGROUND

The implementation of core capacities as stated in the International Health Regulations (IHR) is far from complete, and, as the COVID-19 pandemic shows, the spreading of infectious diseases through points of entry (POEs) is a serious problem. To guide training and exercises, we performed a training needs assessment on infectious disease management among professionals at European POE.

METHODS

We disseminated a digital questionnaire to representatives of designated airports, ports, and ground-crossings in Europe. Topics were derived from the IHR core capacities for POEs. Based on the importance (4-point Likert scale) and training needs (4-point Likert scale), we identified the topics with the highest priority for training. These results were put in further perspective using prior experience (training < 3 year, exercise < 5 years, events < 5 years). Also, preferences for training methodologies were assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty questionnaires were included in the analyses, representing 50 POEs from 19 European countries. Importance is high for 26/30 topics, although scores widely vary among respondents. Topics with a high training need (16/30) are amongst others the handling of ill travelers; using and composing the public health emergency contingency plan, and public health measures. Respondents from ports and airports attribute equal importance to most topics, but respondents from ports showed higher training needs on 75% of the topics. POEs are unevenly and generally little experienced. The most preferred training methods were presentations. Simulation is the preferred methodology for training the handling of ill or exposed travelers.

CONCLUSIONS

The European workforce at designated ports, airports and ground-crossings has a different level of experience and perceives varying importance of the topics assessed in our study. We identified the topics on which training is required. We call for European collaboration between POEs to agree upon the importance of infectious disease management, and to jointly build a trained and prepared workforce that is ready to face the next crisis.

Screening at ports of entry for Ebola Virus Disease in England-a descriptive analysis of screening assessment data, 2014-2015

BACKGROUND

In response to the outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in West Africa in 2014 and evidence of spread to other countries, pre-entry screening was introduced by PHE at five major ports of entry in the England.

METHODS

All passengers that entered the England via the five ports returning from Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leonne were required to complete a Health Assessment Form and have their temperature taken. The numbers, characteristics and outcomes of these passengers were analysed.

RESULTS

Between 14 October 2014 and 13 October 2015, a total of 12 648 passengers from affected countries had been screened. The majority of passengers were assessed as having no direct contact with EVD cases or high-risk events (12 069, 95.4%), although 535 (4.2%) passengers were assessed as requiring public health follow-up. In total, 39 passengers were referred directly to secondary care, although none were diagnosed with EVD. One high-risk passenger was later referred to secondary care and diagnosed with EVD.

CONCLUSIONS

Collection of these screening data enabled timely monitoring of the numbers and characteristics of passengers screened for EVD, facilitated resourcing decisions and acted as a mechanism to inform passengers of the necessary public health actions.

The Utility of a Travel Screen at Triage in Pediatric Emergency Medicine

BACKGROUND

The travel screen was implemented by emergency departments (EDs) across the country in 2014 to detect patients exposed to Ebola early and prevent local outbreaks. It remains part of the triage protocol in many EDs to detect communicable disease from abroad and has become a defacto screen for other travel-related illness. Its utility has not been studied in the pediatric ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of electronic medical records across 3 EDs from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. The screening question reads, "Has the child or a close contact of the child traveled outside the United States in the past 21 days?" A follow-up question requesting travel details is included for positive screens. We compared length of stay, return-visit rates, and differences in disposition between patients with positive and negative travel screens using generalized linear regression. Matched regression estimates, 95% confidence intervals, and P values were reported.

RESULTS

The study population included 152,945 patients with a total of 322,229 encounters in 2016, of which 232,787 encounters had a travel screen documented during triage. There were 2258 patient encounters that had positive travel screens. Only 201 (8.9%) of these encounters had further description of the travel in the comments box. The odds of hospital admission for patients with positive travel screens were 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.01; P < 0.001) times the odds of hospital admission for patients screened negative. The significance of this finding was largely driven by general hospital admission. Other metrics did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a positive travel screen was mildly predictive of inpatient admission, information is not available to providers about travel-related risk. Recent literature suggests integrating a travel history with presenting symptoms and region of travel and could produce a more specific travel screen. A revised travel screen should be implemented and studied in the pediatric ED.