4.7 Article

Performance of a nurse-led paediatric point of care service for respiratory syncytial virus testing in secondary care

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 52-58

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2010.11.002

Keywords

Respiratory syncytial; virus; Point of care testing; Paediatric; Real-time RT-PCR

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G0802432]
  2. MRC [G0802432] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-point-of-care-testing (POCT) performance among paediatric patients with respiratory symptoms, using the BinaxNOW (R) RSV assay performed by trained nurses on the paediatric ward, and compare results with those obtained by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Methods: Four paediatric nurses were trained and certified in using RSV-POCT. Between October 2008 and March 2009, all hospitalised children below 5 years of age presenting with a suspected RSV infection had nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) tested by RSV-POCT by the nurses and a real-time PCR targeting common respiratory viruses by laboratory staff. Results: Among 159 NPS, 21 (13.2%) were RSV-POCT positive and 138 (86.8%) negative. All 21 RSV-POCT positive samples were positive by PCR, yielding a specificity of 100% (95% CI 95.7%, 100.0%). Of 138 RSV-POCT negative samples, 30 (21.7%) were RSV positive by PCR (sensitivity 41.2%; 95% CI: 27.9%, 55.8%). The positive and negative predictive values for RSV-POCT were 100% (95% CI 80.8%, 100.0%) and 78.3% (95% CI 70.3%, 84.6%) respectively. Other respiratory viruses were detected in 52/138 (39.9%) NPS. Conclusions: A POCT for RSV run by trained nurses can be used reliably as a first screening step in symptomatic children. Negative samples should be analysed for RSV and other respiratory pathogens by real-time PCR. (C) 2010 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available