2011
Performance of a nurse-led paediatric point of care service for respiratory syncytial virus testing in secondary care
Publication
Publication
Journal of Infection , Volume 62 - Issue 1 p. 52- 58
Objectives: To evaluate respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-point-of-care-testing (POCT) performance among paediatric patients with respiratory symptoms, using the BinaxNOW® 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.
Additional Metadata | |
---|---|
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2010.11.002, hdl.handle.net/1765/23743 | |
Journal of Infection | |
Organisation | Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam |
Khanom, A. B., Velvin, C., Hawrami, K., Schutten, M., Patel, M., Holmes, M., … Geretti, A. M. (2011). Performance of a nurse-led paediatric point of care service for respiratory syncytial virus testing in secondary care. Journal of Infection, 62(1), 52–58. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2010.11.002 |