Repeated mass testing of staff and residents in prison outbreaks of Covid-19: an enhanced outbreak investigation in two adult prisons in England, 2021 - Czachorowski, Maciej; Bashton, Matthew; O’Moore, Eamonn; McGrath, Nuala; Smith, Darren; Gutridge, Kerry; Parkes, Julie; Plugge, Emma (medRxiv, 2022)
Background The management of Covid-19 outbreaks presented particular challenges in the prison setting. In this study we describe the results from the implementation of a serial mass testing approach in two adult prisons in northern England. The overall aim was to examine the epidemiology of Covid-19 outbreaks in prisons and help inform public health policy and practice during the pandemic.Methods Repeat mass testing was offered to all eligible staff and residents in a women’s (nresidents=239; nstaff=246) and a men’s (nresidents=703; nstaff=340) prison in February and March 2021 at days 0, 7 and 28 after Covid-19 outbreaks were declared. Positive swab samples were sent for viral whole genome sequencing by COG-UK.Findings Participation in at least one testing round ranged from a low of 67% of staff in the men’s prison to a high of 98% of residents in the women’s prison. The largest outbreak, in the men’s prison (261 cases in residents and 37 cases in staff), continued to see new cases identified at the last testing round on day 28. Test positivity in residents of both prisons was significantly lower (p<0.05) at day 28 than on preceding test days, but no significant difference was observed for staff (p>0.05). Epidemiological data in conjunction with sequencing information provided evidence for multiple introductions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from the local community into the prisons, with transmission identified both within wings and between wings among residents and staff. Two distinct SARS-CoV-2 lineages were identified in the women’s and men’s prisons, B.1.177 and B.1.17, respectively.Conclusions During a Covid-19 outbreak, timely implementation of a whole prison testing regime can serve to inform a targeted approach to infection prevention and control by identifying the true extent of disease transmission in all (including asymptomatic) individuals. Staff, in particular, should be tested regularly and testing uptake should be as high as possible to minimise the risk of infection incursion. Ensuring high testing uptake across all testing rounds remains a challenge.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNMcG is a recipient of a National Institute for Health Research Professorship award (RP-2017-08-ST2-008). The main funder for this study is the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), UK Government. The United Kingdom Health Security Agency, and the University of Southampton provided in-kind support for the study. The DHSC had no role in the development of the design of the study or in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript. Colleagues from the DHSC were instrumental in operationalizing the testing that was a key part of the study design.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Research Integrity Group (number 57844) of the University of Southampton, and the Research Ethics Committee of the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (IRAS project ID: 285534; REC reference: 20/NW/0320) gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.