Comparing the effectiveness of universal admission testing and risk-based testing at emergency admission for preventing nosocomial COVID-19: a multicenter retrospective cohort study in Japan.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of universal admission testing (UAT) and risk-based testing (RBT) in preventing nosocomial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after the implementation of strict infection control measures.

Design: Retrospective multicenter cohort study.

Setting: Five community hospitals in Japan.

Patients: 14,028 adult patients admitted emergently from June 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023.

Methods: We calculated crude incidence density rates of community-acquired COVID-19 (positive test ≤4 days postadmission), hospital-acquired COVID-19 (positive test ≥8 days postadmission), total postadmission COVID-19 (all cases of positive test postadmission), and primary cases (sporadic and index cases). A generalized estimating equation model was used to adjust for local incidence (new COVID-19 patients per 100,000 population), single-bed room proportion, and admission proportion of patients older than 65 years.

Results: The weekly local incidence in the study areas was less than 1,800 per 100,000 population (1.8%). Two hospitals implemented RBT and 3 implemented UAT. The median admission testing rate was higher in the UAT group than in the RBT group (95% vs 55%; difference 45.2%, 95% CI, 40.3%-48.8%). Crude and adjusted analyses revealed no significant associations between incidence density rates (IRR; >1 indicates higher incidence with UAT) and admission strategies for any of the outcomes: community-acquired cases (adjusted IRR = 1.23; 95% CI, 0.46-3.31), hospital-acquired cases (1.46; 0.80-2.66), total postadmission COVID-19 (1.22; 0.79-1.87), and primary cases (0.81; 0.59-1.12).

Conclusions: Compared with risk-based testing, universal admission testing may have limited additional benefits in preventing nosocomial COVID-19 transmission during a period of low-moderate local incidence.