» Articles » PMID: 36228768

Factors Affecting Turnaround Time of SARS-CoV-2 Sequencing for Inpatient Infection Prevention and Control Decision Making: Analysis of Data from the COG-UK HOCI Study

Abstract

Background: Barriers to rapid return of sequencing results can affect the utility of sequence data for infection prevention and control decisions.

Aim: To undertake a mixed-methods analysis to identify challenges that sites faced in achieving a rapid turnaround time (TAT) in the COVID-19 Genomics UK Hospital-Onset COVID-19 Infection (COG-UK HOCI) study.

Methods: For the quantitative analysis, timepoints relating to different stages of the sequencing process were extracted from both the COG-UK HOCI study dataset and surveys of study sites. Qualitative data relating to the barriers and facilitators to achieving rapid TATs were included from thematic analysis.

Findings: The overall TAT, from sample collection to receipt of sequence report by infection control teams, varied between sites (median 5.1 days, range 3.0-29.0 days). Most variation was seen between reporting of a positive COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result to sequence report generation (median 4.0 days, range 2.3-27.0 days). On deeper analysis, most of this variability was accounted for by differences in the delay between the COVID-19 PCR result and arrival of the sample at the sequencing laboratory (median 20.8 h, range 16.0-88.7 h). Qualitative analyses suggest that closer proximity of sequencing laboratories to diagnostic laboratories, increased staff flexibility and regular transport times facilitated a shorter TAT.

Conclusion: Integration of pathogen sequencing into diagnostic laboratories may help to improve sequencing TAT to allow sequence data to be of tangible value to infection control practice. Adding a quality control step upstream to increase capacity further down the workflow may also optimize TAT if lower quality samples are removed at an earlier stage.

Citing Articles

A qualitative process evaluation using the behaviour change wheel approach: Did a whole genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 within UK hospitals operate as anticipated?.

Flowers P, Leiser R, Mapp F, McLeod J, Stirrup O, Illingworth C Br J Health Psychol. 2023; 28(4):1011-1035.

PMID: 37128667 PMC: 11497355. DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12666.


Effectiveness of rapid SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing in supporting infection control for hospital-onset COVID-19 infection: Multicentre, prospective study.

Stirrup O, Blackstone J, Mapp F, MacNeil A, Panca M, Holmes A Elife. 2022; 11.

PMID: 36098502 PMC: 9596156. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.78427.

References
1.
. An integrated national scale SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance network. Lancet Microbe. 2020; 1(3):e99-e100. PMC: 7266609. DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30054-9. View

2.
Evans D, Cowen S, Kammel M, OSullivan D, Stewart G, Grunert H . The Dangers of Using Cq to Quantify Nucleic Acid in Biological Samples: A Lesson From COVID-19. Clin Chem. 2021; 68(1):153-162. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/hvab219. View

3.
Stirrup O, Blackstone J, Mapp F, MacNeil A, Panca M, Holmes A . Effectiveness of rapid SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing in supporting infection control for hospital-onset COVID-19 infection: Multicentre, prospective study. Elife. 2022; 11. PMC: 9596156. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.78427. View

4.
Eyre D, Golubchik T, Gordon N, Bowden R, Piazza P, Batty E . A pilot study of rapid benchtop sequencing of Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile for outbreak detection and surveillance. BMJ Open. 2012; 2(3). PMC: 3378946. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001124. View

5.
Blackstone J, Stirrup O, Mapp F, Panca M, Copas A, Flowers P . Protocol for the COG-UK hospital-onset COVID-19 infection (HOCI) multicentre interventional clinical study: evaluating the efficacy of rapid genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in limiting the spread of COVID-19 in UK NHS hospitals. BMJ Open. 2022; 12(4):e052514. PMC: 9019828. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052514. View