Skip to content

COVID-19 Screening Program

COVID SAFE 2.0: COVID-19 Screening Program

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05216627
Acronym
COVID SAFE 2
Enrollment
61
Registered
2022-01-31
Start date
2022-02-07
Completion date
2022-07-01
Last updated
2024-07-31

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

COVID-19

Brief summary

In view of the recent COVID surge and difficulties in obtaining testing, we aim to increase Point of Care (POC) testing, whereby University of Pennsylvania (Penn) faculty, staff, and trainees who are working in person at Perelman School of Medicine (PSOM) laboratories can self-test. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the implementation of this POC testing program. We will not be collecting any samples as part of this study. This will ensure that individuals can rapidly identify if they have COVID-19 while balancing use, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. We will start with a pilot phase whereby we will evaluate the implementation of a POC version of COVID-19 screening program that will coordinate several existing systems at the University of Pennsylvania including voluntary, self-administered saliva-based viral testing. We will pilot this program to a small cohort of PSOM labs and then test implementation of the self-testing of the POC version of COVID-19 screening across all PSOM labs for those who wish to participate. All results will be self-reported and will not be used to validate any tests or support any future approval from the FDA. No data from this study will go into the participants' Electronic Medical Record (EMR).

Detailed description

Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in close to 300,000,000 reported cases worldwide, including more than 58,000,000 reported cases and 800,000 deaths in the United States \[1,2\]. Initial efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic were aimed at testing symptomatic individuals, implementing stay-in-place orders, and at increasing hospital capacity to meet surge demands \[3\]. Currently, we are going through an unprecedented surge in the total number of cases - mostly due to the spread of the Omicron variant. While we continue to confront the current crisis, a complete lockdown as seen in 2020 is not desirable or being planned. We must address the current issue and also plan for the future by putting in place tools to enhance our ability to conduct effective screening, containment, and case management. Future variants may cause similar delays in testing availability. Widespread COVID-19 testing is needed to safely and effectively operate schools, workplaces, and businesses across the US. However, currently approved clinical testing options require reagents that are limited in supply and expensive quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) machines, severely hindering scalability \[4\] coupled with acute shortage of person-power. In response to limited clinical testing options, rapid antigen tests that are available to purchase over-the-counter and can be self-administered have become recently a popular testing approach; however, these tests are expensive, in short supply, and may not be as sensitive in detecting Omicron variant compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests \[5\]. Emerging evidence indicates that saliva testing with the option of self-administration of testing can accurately identify COVID-19 viral infection \[6\]. Moreover, this approach provides an option for the easy, safe and convenient collection of samples required for testing without traveling to a doctor's office, hospital, or testing site. Point of care testing (i.e. using saliva-based self-collection to administer screening for COVID-19 in one's own laboratory setting) utilizes testing equipment that is readily available to our workforce, leverages their existing training, and benefits from existing institutional health and safety infrastructure. Self-administration of saliva testing also reduces exposure of health care workers to the virus and preserves limited personal protective equipment \[7\]. Additional diagnostic testing options will continue to increase staff access. For these reasons, we propose to evaluate the implementation of a COVID-19 POC screening program that uses saliva-based self-testing and to pilot test approaches to improve program enrollment. Objective: The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the use, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of implementing a voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) screening program with Penn faculty, staff, and trainees that uses saliva-based self-collection followed by testing in their own PSOM laboratories. A secondary objective is to learn about self-reported test results, program usability, user burden, participant experience, program ease, program continuation and availability. Another secondary objective is to learn about individual's perspectives about the program. Study Design: This is an implementation clinical trial that we anticipate lasting up to two months. In the first phase, we will pilot the approach with four PSOM laboratories. We plan to enroll up to 50 people across these labs during the pilot phase. Labs will be located on Penn campus. We will pilot test the best manner to distribute saliva collection test kits and assay tests to participants and elicit rapid feedback for one week. We will apply feedback in real time to improve the distribution method. In the second phase, we will roll out the clinical trial more broadly across all interested PSOM laboratories. We anticipate enrolling up to 500 participants across all PSOM laboratories. All participants will be Penn employees (faculty, staff, and trainees) who work in a PSOM laboratory. All participants will be required to provide informed consent and watch a training video before self-collecting their first saliva sample. All participants will be told they can collect saliva samples as much or as little as they want - but no more than daily for up to four weeks. They will also be asked to complete online surveys weekly for up to four weeks. These surveys are expected to take about 15 minutes to complete. See below for table of survey measures and frequency. A subset of participants will also be asked to participate in a one-time qualitative interview after the point of care testing program is over. This interview is expected to take about 30 minutes.

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTSelf-administered saliva-based viral testing

Participants will be instructed on how to inactivate the virus and bring their sample to their laboratory's central PCR machine, where they will take an assay test. They will be instructed to collect saliva into a 1.5 milliliter (mL) collection tube containing inactivation buffer (TCEP and EDTA) using a small funnel and inactivate at 95°C for 10 minutes. Participants will then transfer 6ul of saliva into 2 PCR tubes containing amplification master mix and primers, put tubes in a heat block or PCR machine at 65°C for 45 minutes and assess fluorescence using a simple battery-powered fluorescence viewer. Once they assess their sample, they will be instructed to dispose of the saliva sample safely and in accordance with best laboratory practices. No saliva samples will be collected by the research team at any time as part of this study.

Sponsors

University of Pennsylvania
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

To be eligible, participants must: 1. Be 18 years or older 2. Be University of Pennsylvania staff, faculty or trainee who is working in person on campus at a PSOM laboratory 3. Have knowledge of safe practices in and access to a biological safety cabinet 4. Have knowledge and access to pipet and PCR machine

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Use of a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Programfourteen weeksHow often they use the POC screening program
Acceptability of Implementing a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Programfourteen weeksSelf-reported acceptability of implementing POC screening program using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (i.e., Point of care testing is acceptable to me). Scale values: 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).
Appropriateness of Implementing a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Programfourteen weeksSelf-reported appropriateness of implementing POC screening program using the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (i.e., Point of care testing seems appropriate.). Scale values: 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).
Feasibility of Implementing a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Programfourteen weeksSelf-reported feasibility of implementing POC screening program using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (i.e., Point of care testing seems feasible.). Scale values: 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Program Easefour weeksself report of ease of program using open ended qualitative questions
Program Continuationfour weeksself report of interest in program continuing using a Likert Scale. Scale values: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Self Report of Test Resultsfour weeksSelf-report of if participant received any positive test results from saliva-based viral test or Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) approved test
Participant Perspective of Program Implementation and Change in Behavior or Decision-making Processone time interview after four weeks of interventionself report of perspectives of program implementation and change in behavior or decision-making using qualitative open ended questions
Program Availabilityfour weeksself report of interest in program being more widely available using a Likert Scale. Scale values: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Program Usabilityfour weeksSelf report of program usability using the Intervention Usability Scale. Scale values: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
User Burdenfour weeksself report of user burden using the User Burden Scale. Scale values: 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).
Participant Experiencefour weeksself report of participant's experience in program using open ended qualitative questions

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
PSOM Staff, Trainees, or Faculty Who Participate in the Point of Care Testing
The cohort will be offered access to a self-administered saliva-based viral test is a small funnel and a tube in which participants will put their saliva into. When they are ready to self-collect their saliva sample, they will be instructed to not eat or drink for 30 minutes prior to collecting their saliva and to collect saliva in an isolated room. We will evaluate the implementation of this viral test. Self-administered saliva-based viral testing: Participants will be instructed on how to inactivate the virus and bring their sample to their laboratory's central PCR machine, where they will take an assay test. They will be instructed to collect saliva into a 1.5 milliliter (mL) collection tube containing inactivation buffer (TCEP and EDTA) using a small funnel and inactivate at 95°C for 10 minutes. Participants will then transfer 6ul of saliva into 2 PCR tubes containing amplification master mix and primers, put tubes in a heat block or PCR machine at 65°C for 45 minutes and assess fluorescence using a simple battery-powered fluorescence viewer. Once they assess their sample, they will be instructed to dispose of the saliva sample safely and in accordance with best laboratory practices. No saliva samples will be collected by the research team at any time as part of this study.
61
Total61

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPSOM Staff, Trainees, or Faculty Who Participate in the Point of Care Testing
Age, Continuous37.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.5
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
1 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
59 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
13 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
4 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
39 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
61 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
32 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
29 Participants
Study Participation Level
Lab Captains
15 Participants
Study Participation Level
Non-Captains
46 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 61
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 61
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 61

Outcome results

Primary

Acceptability of Implementing a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Program

Self-reported acceptability of implementing POC screening program using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (i.e., Point of care testing is acceptable to me). Scale values: 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).

Time frame: fourteen weeks

Population: Only the 15 lab captains completed surveys related to this outcome. As such, results for this outcome were only collected from the 15 lab captains, not all participants. Screening tests were conducted by the 15 lab captains on behalf of participants from their respective labs.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PSOM Staff, Trainees, or Faculty Who Participate in the Point of Care TestingAcceptability of Implementing a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Program4.36 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.72
Primary

Appropriateness of Implementing a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Program

Self-reported appropriateness of implementing POC screening program using the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (i.e., Point of care testing seems appropriate.). Scale values: 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).

Time frame: fourteen weeks

Population: Only the 15 lab captains completed surveys related to this outcome. As such, results for this outcome were only collected from the 15 lab captains, not all participants. Screening tests were conducted by the 15 lab captains on behalf of participants from their respective labs.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PSOM Staff, Trainees, or Faculty Who Participate in the Point of Care TestingAppropriateness of Implementing a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Program4.40 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.72
Primary

Feasibility of Implementing a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Program

Self-reported feasibility of implementing POC screening program using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (i.e., Point of care testing seems feasible.). Scale values: 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).

Time frame: fourteen weeks

Population: Only the 15 lab captains completed surveys related to this outcome. As such, results for this outcome were only collected from the 15 lab captains, not all participants. Screening tests were conducted by the 15 lab captains on behalf of participants from their respective labs.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PSOM Staff, Trainees, or Faculty Who Participate in the Point of Care TestingFeasibility of Implementing a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Program4.29 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.75
Primary

Use of a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Program

How often they use the POC screening program

Time frame: fourteen weeks

Population: Lab-wide screening test completion was reported to the study team by captains on behalf of participants from their respective labs. Fifteen captains participated over the course of the program.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
PSOM Staff, Trainees, or Faculty Who Participate in the Point of Care TestingUse of a Voluntary COVID-19 Point of Care (POC) Screening Program238 total completed screening tests reported
Secondary

Participant Experience

self report of participant's experience in program using open ended qualitative questions

Time frame: four weeks

Population: Based on engagement and participant feedback during this study, follow-up questions were minimized to reduce participant burden. Participants had the opportunity to informally share qualitative feedback over the course of the study, but there was not a formal evaluation of participant experience at four weeks. As such, this outcome cannot be reported.

Secondary

Participant Perspective of Program Implementation and Change in Behavior or Decision-making Process

self report of perspectives of program implementation and change in behavior or decision-making using qualitative open ended questions

Time frame: one time interview after four weeks of intervention

Population: Based on engagement and participant feedback during this study, follow-up qualitative interviews were not conducted. As such, this outcome cannot be reported.

Secondary

Program Availability

self report of interest in program being more widely available using a Likert Scale. Scale values: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Time frame: four weeks

Population: Based on engagement and participant feedback during the pilot phases of this study, follow-up surveys were minimized to reduce participant burden. This scale was not implemented for participants, and as such, the outcome cannot be reported.

Secondary

Program Continuation

self report of interest in program continuing using a Likert Scale. Scale values: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Time frame: four weeks

Population: Based on engagement and participant feedback during the pilot phases of this study, follow-up surveys were minimized to reduce participant burden. This scale was not implemented for participants, and as such, the outcome cannot be reported.

Secondary

Program Ease

self report of ease of program using open ended qualitative questions

Time frame: four weeks

Population: Based on engagement and participant feedback during the pilot phases of this study, follow-up questions were minimized to reduce participant burden. Qualitative interviews were not implemented with participants, and as such, this outcome cannot be reported.

Secondary

Program Usability

Self report of program usability using the Intervention Usability Scale. Scale values: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Time frame: four weeks

Population: Based on engagement and participant feedback during the pilot phases of this study, follow-up surveys were minimized to reduce participant burden. This scale was not implemented for participants, and as such, the outcome cannot be reported.

Secondary

Self Report of Test Results

Self-report of if participant received any positive test results from saliva-based viral test or Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) approved test

Time frame: four weeks

Population: Given participant preferences to retain privacy, individual counts of positive tests were not tracked and self-reports of test results were not collected. However, when completing the survey on their colleagues' behalf, lab captains could note whether anyone in their labs received a positive test result, and they also had the option not to disclose results. The count for this measure refers to the number of labs which reported a positive test result during the study period.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
PSOM Staff, Trainees, or Faculty Who Participate in the Point of Care TestingSelf Report of Test Results1 laboratories
Secondary

User Burden

self report of user burden using the User Burden Scale. Scale values: 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).

Time frame: four weeks

Population: Based on engagement and participant feedback during the pilot phases of this study, follow-up surveys were minimized to reduce participant burden. This scale was not implemented for participants, and as such, the outcome cannot be reported.

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026