Coronavirus informatics companies are drawing clinical laboratory test data out of the shadows and into the light and compiling it into critical bioinformatics resources
What better example do we have that clinical laboratory test data is critical to population health than the current COVID-19 pandemic? Medical laboratory scientists, bioinformatics developers, and government healthcare leaders are using lab test data to track the disease’s rate of infection, and through information system dashboards, they are mapping and managing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness.
One such example is the CV19 Lab Testing Dashboard developed by hc1 in Indianapolis, which “integrates SARS-CoV-2 testing data from more than 20,000 testing locations across the country, updating every four hours with information on the number of tests performed and the number of positive and negative results along with demographic information like the gender and age of patients being tested,” noted an article by 360Dx titled, “SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic a Test Case for Role of Lab Data in Population Health.”
“This pandemic is putting a spotlight on how important lab data is,” Brad Bostic, Founder, Chairman, and CEO of hc1, told the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ). His bioinformatics firm developed the CV19 dashboard, which draws on data created by a healthcare coalition of commercial and health system clinical laboratories that use the company’s High-Value Care Platform for lab testing.
The CV19 Lab Testing dashboard is free and provides a Local Risk Index that enables public health and government agencies, and healthcare providers, to monitor escalation of infection rate at the county level and predict the need for resources, noted an hc1 news release.
“We can offer insights [about the outbreak] seven to 14 days ahead of when emergency rooms and intensive care units get bogged down,” Bostic told the IBJ.
The hc1 dashboard provides healthcare providers with:
Test data collected from 20,000 locations covering 50 states and 90% of counties;
Information updates within minutes of SARS-CoV-2-PCR test results;
Test data that are quickly shared through an intuitive interface;
Geographic maps of test results that enable insight on COVID-19 infection rates at single county or Public Use Microdata Area level;
Number of tests per day, as well as positive and negative results; and
Displays of positivity rates and aggregated demographic information, such as gender and age.
Geisinger Health Uses Dashboard, Clinical Lab 2.0
The use of medical laboratory tests results in pursuit of population health also illustrates the value of the Clinical Lab 2.0 model, noted 360Dx.
According to 360Dx, Geisinger Health System, a leader in Clinical Lab 2.0, employs informatics tools for population-centric (as opposed to patient-focused) analysis of its SARS-CoV-2 testing. The Pennsylvania-based healthcare system uses lab testing dashboards to:
Review laboratory results in aggregate;
See positivity rates per county; and
Note amount of testing from sites.
“We needed to make sure that everyone could see the amount of testing that was being done, where that testing was coming from, and the results of that testing in a much [clearer] way. We began by setting up dashboards,” Jordan Olson, MD (above), a clinical pathologist and Geisinger’s Division Chief of Clinical Pathology, Informatics and Quality, told 360Dx. [Photo copyright: Cardinal Health/Whitehat Communications.)
Clinical Lab 2.0, a Project Santa Fe initiative, is a “business model leveraging longitudinal data to produce actionable clinical insight driving better outcomes for patients, providers, and stakeholders,” states the nonprofit organization’s website.
Sonora Quest Laboratories in Arizona also uses a dashboard to support its front-line healthcare workers to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, stated a news release.
“Most data flowing into public sector sites is eight to 14 days old, which in the case of COVID-19, is too told to react. Public health action requires the most immediate data possible, including test orders and results as soon as they appear,” said Meghan Shapiro Hunter, Vice President of Operations, Hospital Laboratories, Sonora Quest Laboratories, in the news release.
Other Informatics Technology Tracking COVID-19 Pandemic
Medial EarlySign develops AlgoMarkers that “perform algorithmic processing of lab results, clinical, and EHR data to provide condition-specific, post-analytical, personalized patient risk assessment scores to physicians, population health managers, and healthcare teams,” according to the medical informatics company’s website.
Headquartered in Israel, Medial worked with Maccabi Healthcare Services to develop an AlgoMarker that clinical laboratories, healthcare systems, and life sciences companies can use to spot trends in COVID-19 patients and make disease predictions based on risk, gender, co-morbidities, and medications, noted 360Dx.
Medial EarlySign also developed AlgoMarker algorithms to foresee influenza complications. According to a news release, the algorithms work by flagging people according to:
medical parameters,
demographics,
hospital admissions,
medications,
smoking history,
past diagnoses, and
chronic conditions.
Clinical Laboratory Data Enters the Spotlight
For some time now, medical laboratory data have been supporting positive outcomes and improving patient health from behind the curtain, so to speak. However, that appears to be changing fast as bioinformatics and medical informatics companies compile data in compelling dashboards aimed at helping public officials and healthcare providers manage the spread of COVID-19.
Pathologists, clinical laboratory leaders, and informatics specialists may want to explore use of dashboards to support their population health and COVID-19 testing efforts.
Though experts say an antigen test is not as accurate as PCR tests, its low cost, ease of use, and widespread availability make it a boon for clinical labs performing COVID-19 testing
As former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, explained on Face the Nation, “this kind of technology is a real game changer … it’s a very rapid test that could be used in a doctor’s office. Doctors now have about forty thousand of these Sofia machines already installed in their offices … you do a simple nasal swab and the test itself scans for the antigens that the virus produces.
“The test is about 85% sensitive. So, let’s say a hundred people come into a doctor’s office who have COVID-19, eighty-five of them are going to be able to be tested positive with this test very quickly. It’s a cheap test. It’ll probably be about five dollars a test and you can get a result within five minutes … you’re getting a very fast result and you can start to take action immediately.
“The company itself said that they’re going to be able to produce about two hundred thousand of these tests starting right away. But in several weeks, they’ll be able to produce up to 1.5 million a week. So, this dramatically expands our testing capacity as long as doctors are able to run these tests in their offices.”
In an interview on CBS’ Face the Nation, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD (above), said, “These antigen-based tests aren’t as reliable, meaning they’re not as sensitive. So, they’re going to miss some patients who have COVID. But in the hands of a doctor who already has a high index of suspicion that the patient may have the disease … they allow you to dramatically expand testing. And they’re very cheap. They’re very easy to perform. And again, most doctors have these machines already in their offices.” (Photo copyright: US Food and Drug Administration.)
Other LDTs That Have Received EUAs
Here’s a look at other laboratory-developed tests from major manufacturers that have received emergency-use authorizations from the FDA:
This test is designed for use with Abbott’s m2000 RealTime system, which is installed in about 200 US medical laboratories, the company says. It can run up to 470 patient samples in 24 hours. As of a May 11 statement, the company said it had shipped more than two million tests in the US.
This test is designed for use with Abbott’s Alinity m system, which the company describes as its “most advanced laboratory molecular instrument,” with the ability to run up to 1,080 tests in 24 hours, according to a press release.
This is a rapid test designed for use with the ID Now system, a compact portable instrument for point-of-care settings such as urgent care clinics. As of May 11, Abbott said it had shipped more than 1.7 million tests in the US, and that it planned to increase manufacturing capacity to two million tests per month.
However, the test has encountered some stumbling blocks. On May 14, the FDA issued an alert stating that the ID Now COVID-19 test could produce inaccurate negative results. This came after researchers at NYU Langone Health, Northwell Health, and Cleveland Clinic reported problems with the test, according to MedTech Dive. Abbott issued a statement suggesting that the problems were due to improper sample collection and handling, however, the FDA said that Abbott had agreed to conduct post-market studies to identify the cause of the false negatives and suggest remedial actions.
This is a qualitative test designed to detect the presence of IgG antibodies following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The FDA authorized use of the assay on Abbott’s Architect i2000SR system in April, and then followed up with a May 11 EUA for its use on the Alinity i system. In a statement, Abbott said it planned to ship 30 million tests globally starting in May.
In a March statement, the FDA touted this as the first point-of-care COVID-19 test to receive an EUA. The company estimates the detection time as approximately 45 minutes. It is designed for use with Cepheid’s GeneXpert Dx diagnostic software and GeneXpert Infinity systems, which have nearly 5,000 US installations, according to a Cepheid statement.
This test runs on Hologic’s Panther system, which, according to a Hologic press release, can provide results in about three hours and run more than 1,000 tests per day. The company claims that more than 1,000 Panther systems are installed in US labs, and that it expects to produce an average of one million tests per week.
Ortho’s antibody test is designed for use with its VITROS XT 7600, 3600, 5600, and ECi/ECiQ immunodiagnostic systems, which, the company says are installed in more than 1,000 US labs. The Total Reagent Pack is a qualitative test that detects the presence of all antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.
On April 24, Ortho announced it had received another FDA EUA, this one for its Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test, which detects the presence of IgG antibodies. In a statement, the company said it expects to produce “several million” IgG tests per month.
This test is designed for use with Roche’s cobas 6800 and 8800 systems. The 6800 can process up to 384 results in an eight-hour shift, Roche says, compared with 1,056 results for the 8800 model. The company says results are available in about 3.5 hours. In a statement, Roche said it planned to ship 400,000 tests per week.
Roche describes this as a qualitative antibody test that can be used on cobas e series immunoassay analyzers. Testing time is 18 minutes. As of May 19, the test was live at more than 20 US labs, “with plans in the next several weeks to increase to more than 200 commercial and hospital lab sites with the ability to perform millions of tests per week,” the company stated in a press release.
It’s likely the FDA will continue to issue emergency-use authorizations as the agency receives more applications from IVD manufacturers.
Washington Post investigation outlines scientists’ frustrations in the early days of the pandemic, as they worked to deploy laboratory-developed tests for the novel coronavirus
In the wake of the failed rollout of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) COVID-19 diagnostic test last February, many CLIA-certified academic and public health laboratories were ready, and had the necessary resources, to develop their own coronavirus molecular diagnostic tests to help meet the nationwide demand for clinical laboratory testing. However, the response from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was, in essence, “not so fast.”
In this second part of Dark Daily’s two-part e-briefing, we continue our coverage of the Washington Post (WP) investigation that detailed the regulatory hurdles which blocked private laboratories from deploying their own laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) for COVID-19. The report is based on previously unreported email messages and other documents reviewed by the WP, as well as the newspaper’s exclusive interviews with scientists and officials involved.
The CDC’s COVID-19 test kits began arriving at public health laboratories on February 8, just 18 days after the first case of the novel coronavirus was confirmed in the US. As the WP noted in an earlier analysis, titled, “What Went Wrong with Coronavirus Testing in the US,” the CDC’s decision to develop its own test was not surprising. “The CDC will develop [its] own test that is suited to an American healthcare context and the regulations that exist here,” explained Jeremy Konyndyk, Senior Policy Fellow at the Center for Global Development. “That’s how we normally would do things.”
But state and local public health laboratories quickly discovered that the CDC test kits were flawed due to problems with one of the reagents. While numerous academic, research, and commercial labs had the capability to produce their own COVID-19 PCR tests, FDA rules initially prevented them from doing so without a federal Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
The bureaucratic hurdles arose due to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar’s January 31 declaration that COVID-19 was a “health emergency” in the US. By doing so, HHS triggered a mandate that requires CLIA-certified labs at universities, research centers, and hospitals to seek an EUA from the FDA before deploying any laboratory-developed tests.
Scientists, Clinical Laboratories Frustrated by Bureaucratic Delays and Red Tape
To make matters worse, the EUA process was neither simple nor fast, which exasperated lab scientists and clinical laboratory administrators. “In their private communications, scientists at academic, hospital, and public health labs—one layer removed from federal agency operations—expressed dismay at the failure to move more quickly, and frustration at bureaucratic demands that delayed their attempts to develop alternatives to the CDC test,” wrote the WP investigators.
In a Feb. 27 email to other microbiologists, Marc Couturier, PhD, Medical Director at ARUP Laboratories, a national reference laboratory network located in Utah, voiced his irritation with the red tape that stymied private laboratory development of COVID-19 tests. He wrote, “We have the skills and resources as a community, but we are collectively paralyzed by a bloated bureaucratic/administrative process,” reported the WP.
Keith Jerome, MD, PhD (above), Head of the Virology Division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, maintains federal regulations muted one of the nation’s greatest assets in the fight against COVID-19. “The great strength the US has always had, not just in virology, is that we’ve always had a wide variety of people and groups working on any given problem,” he told MIT Technology Review. “When we decided all coronavirus testing had to be done by a single entity, even one as outstanding as CDC, we basically gave away our greatest strength.” (Photo copyright: Jonathan Hamilton/NPR.)
‘FDA Should Not Treat Labs Like They Are Creating Commercial Products’
According to Kaiser Health News (KHN), Greninger was able to identify one of the nation’s first cases of community-acquired COVID-19 by taking “advantage of a regulatory loophole that allowed the lab to test samples obtained for research purposes from UW’s hospitals.”
But navigating the EUA process was a different story, Greninger told the WP. He spent more than 100 hours filling out forms and collecting information needed for the EUA application. After emailing the application to the FDA, Greninger received a reply containing eCopy Guidance telling him he needed to resubmit the information to the Document Control Center (DCC) at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), a federal agency Greninger knew nothing about. Another FDA rule required that the submission be copied to a hard disk and mailed to the DCC.
In an interview with ProPublica, Greninger stated that after he submitted his COVID-19 test—which copies the CDC protocol—an FDA reviewer told him he would need to prove the test would not show a positive result for someone infected with either a SARS or MERS coronavirus. The first SARS coronavirus disappeared in mid-2003 and the only two cases of MERS in the US were diagnosed in 2014. Greninger told ProPublica it took him two days to locate a clinical laboratory that could provide the materials he needed.
Greninger maintains the FDA should not treat all clinical laboratories as though they are making a commercial product. “I think it makes sense to have this regulation when you’re going to sell 100,000 widgets across the US. That’s not who we are,” he told ProPublica.
FDA Changes Course
Under pressure from clinical laboratory scientists and medical doctors, by the end of February the FDA had issued new policy that enabled CLIA-certified laboratories to immediately use their validated COVID-19 diagnostics while awaiting an EUA. “This policy change was an unprecedented action to expand access to testing,” said the FDA in a statement.
Since then, the FDA has continued to respond—albeit slowly—to scientists’ complaints about regulations that hampered the nation’s COVID-19 testing capacity.
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists involved in testing for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus should monitor the FDA’s actions and be aware of when and if certain temporary changes the agency implemented during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic become permanent.
To read part one of our two-part coverage of the Washington Post’s investigation, click here.
Previously unreported email messages and documents paint vivid picture of public health laboratory officials’ dismay and frustration over testing delays
Between late January and early March, Clinical laboratory leaders watched with dismay as federal government missteps crippled the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) rollout of its COVID-19 diagnostic testing in the early days of the pandemic. The resulting lack of testing capacity enabled the novel coronavirus’ spread across the United States.
This first part of Dark Daily’s two-part e-briefing covers how investigators at the Washington Post (WP) have produced a timeline describing the CDC initial failure to produce a reliable laboratory test for COVID-19 and the regulatory hurdles that blocked medical laboratories from developing their own tests for the virus. The WP’s report is based on previously unreleased email messages and other documents reviewed by the WP, as well as the newspaper’s exclusive interviews with medical laboratory scientists and officials involved.
A New York Times report on the federal government’s initial review of the testing kit failure pinned the blame on sloppy practices at CDC laboratories in Atlanta and a lack of expertise in commercial manufacturing. However, the WP reported that COVID-19 testing kits were delayed due to a “glaring scientific breakdown” at the central lab, created when the CDC facilities that assembled the kits “violated sound manufacturing practices” that resulted in cross contamination of testing compounds.
The US and other countries have criticized China for a lack of transparency about the virus’ emergence, which came to light on December 31, 2019, when China reported a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) timeline. A week later, Chinese authorities identified the pneumonia-like illness as being caused by a new novel coronavirus.
In the US, the first case of COVID-19 was found January 21 in a Washington State man who had traveled to Wuhan. But in the weeks that followed, the US government’s inability to establish a systematic testing policy became the catalyst for the virus’ ultimate spread to more than two million people, notes the CDC website.
ProPublica, which conducted its own investigation into the early stages of the government’s coronavirus response, blamed the failures on “chaos” at the CDC and “an antiquated public health system trying to adapt on the fly.”
The CDC’s first mistake may have been underestimating the danger COVID-19 posed to public health in this country. During a January 15 conference call, CDC scientists assured state and county public health officials that the agency was developing a COVID-19 diagnostic test which soon would be available, but which may not be needed “unless the scope gets much larger than we anticipate right now,” reported the WP.
A week later, an interview with CNBC, President Trump said, “We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
CDC scientists designed their test in seven days, which, according to the WP investigators, is “a stunningly short period of time for a healthcare system built around the principles of medical quality and patient safety, not speed.” But when those initial CDC-made tests arrived at a New York City public health laboratory on February 8, lab technicians discovered the COVID-19 assays often indicated the presence of the coronavirus in samples that the lab’s scientists knew did not contain the virus.
When the scientists informed Lab Director Jennifer Rakeman, PhD, Assistant Commissioner, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, her response, according to the WP, was “Oh, s—. What are we going to do now?”
That night, Director Jill Taylor, PhD, Director of New York State’s Wadsworth Center public health reference laboratory, emailed state health officials, stating, “There is a technical problem in one of the reagents which invalidates the assay and will not allow us to perform the assay,” reported the WP. “I’m sorry not to have better news.”
Scott Becker (above), Executive Director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), voiced his concerns about the CDC’s flawed COVID-19 test kits in an email to a CDC official, reported the WP. “The states and their governors are going to come unglued,” Becker wrote, adding, “If the CDC doesn’t get ahead of this, it will be a disaster.” (Photo copyright: Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post.)
‘The Silence from CDC is Deafening’
On February 10, Joanne Bartkus, PhD, then-Lab Director of the Minnesota Health of Department, wrote to APHL Executive Director Scott Becker: “The silence from CDC … is deafening. What is going on?” reported the WP.
By the end of February, the Associated Press (AP) reported that only 472 patients had been tested for COVID-19 nationwide. By comparison, South Korea, which identified its first case of COVID-19 on the same day as the US, was testing 1,000 people per day.
A WHO spokesperson told the WP that, “… no discussions occurred between WHO and CDC (or other US government agencies) about WHO providing COVID-19 tests to the US.” When the CDC’s original COVID-19 test kit failed, there may not have been a Plan B. This may explain why the opportunity to contain COVID-19 through surveillance testing was lost during the weeks it took to design a fix for the CDC test and loosen regulations so clinical laboratories could develop their own tests.
As medical laboratory scientists and clinical laboratory leaders know, the lack of early COVID-19 testing was a public health failure and painted a false picture of the virus’ spread. Nearly five months after the first case of the virus was confirmed in the US, testing capacity may only now be outpacing demand.
Click here to read part two of our coverage of the Washington Post’s investigation.
Lab leaders who adopt best practices in courier services will help ensure their lab’s supply chains remain secure
Hospital and health systems using courier services to transport patients’ biological specimens from doctors’ offices and other locations to clinical laboratories for testing and reporting are finding those services delayed or disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Limited office hours, closed physician practices, and the need for drivers to take time for symptom checking on healthcare campuses are among the growing challenges faced by couriers transporting medical laboratory specimens during this pandemic, experts told Dark Daily.
All these developments require courier operations and logistics companies to think outside the box for solutions that address the unique challenges triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that have disrupted the normal operations of physicians’ offices, hospitals, and other healthcare providers. For example, many clinical labs struggle to obtain enough specimen collection and specimen transport supplies to sustain both their nascent COVID-19 testing programs and their routine testing operations.
One national logistics company recognized that it could help labs with the disruption in the supply chain for laboratory supplies caused by the coronavirus outbreak. In the early weeks of the pandemic, West Haven, Conn.-based Lab Logistics and its sister company Path-Tec, took the initiative to develop collaborations and strategic partnerships with several established manufacturers of medical laboratory supplies. Now it could not only be a source of much-needed supplies for its clients, but its network of couriers could supply the increase in services for all the locations where such supplies were needed.
Meanwhile, the coronavirus outbreak caused widespread disruption to the daily activities of hospitals, health systems, physician’s offices, and other providers. According to Susan Uihlein, Senior Vice President Business Development-Hospital Couriers at Lab Logistics—a company that creates, implements, and manages courier models customized to medical laboratory, hospitals, and health systems—in response to the pandemic, there was an immediate need by one of the largest multi-regional Health Systems in New York to align courier and logistics services to meet the new realities of how its facilities would respond to patient needs. It was also necessary that logistics solutions be complementary with the health systems’ COVID-19 policies.
“This health system requested that Lab Logistics’ drivers access the hospital’s personnel tracking application upon arrival,” explained Uihlein. “The health system’s new COVID-19 policy required everyone wishing to enter the health system campus to complete a coronavirus screening process—including having a temperature reading taken—and then receive a status confirmation on a smartphone screen. This obviously impacted the couriers’ progress on their routes.”
“We have 2,600 medical-specific couriers throughout the United States, and although all couriers undergo extensive orientation regarding known infectious transport, this current situation has spotlighted how important (COVID-19) is to our clients,” Brian McArdle, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lab Logistics, told Dark Daily.
“The couriers represent us and our clients,” he continued. “They are out in the field, they are picking up, delivering, and rolling with the punches as far as what a healthcare system or a clinical laboratory needs from them—from photo IDs to wearing masks and gloves. The process keeps evolving. And we have evolved with it.”
“Our operations team makes sure that we work with each client to flexibly react to changes in that day’s pickups and deliveries, as appropriate. There has been much optimization and on-the-fly changes,” said Uihlein.
In fact, the coronavirus pandemic resulted in a 26% increase in requests for specimen delivery, PPE, and COVID-19 related supply chain movement, according to data on the California, Louisiana, and New York City healthcare markets provided by Lab Logistics.
“Every day there have been changes to what is open and closed. We had to manage that through our proprietary healthcare dispatch system and with the couriers,” Susan Uihlein (above), Senior Vice President Business Development-Hospital Couriers at Lab Logistics, told Dark Daily. Lab Logistics transports medical specimens, supplies, and pharma for more than 350 US hospitals, healthcare systems, and clinical laboratories. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Clinical Laboratories Should Review Specimen Transport Procedures
Clearly, the COVID-19 pandemic is putting unique stresses on the logistics and transportation services operated by hospital systems, medical labs and anatomic pathology groups. That why it would be timely and appropriate for lab leaders to review/update best practices and necessary requirements that ensure efficient management of clinical laboratory specimens.
Topics covered in this highly-informative white paper include:
Handling and tracking laboratory specimen samples;
Confirming medical security, chain of custody, and transit tracking;
Coordinating test kits, supplies, reagents, lab equipment, and instruments;
Approaching a medical courier service conversion.
“By utilizing a logistics system that includes a dedicated courier, medical laboratories and healthcare systems can manage all aspects of transportation specimen transport, including handling and tracking of specimens, medical security, chain of custody, tracking supply inventory, and delivery. Successfully executed, all of these functions can generate financial improvements,” notes the white paper.
Tracking Specimen Arrival and Predicting Which Tests Will Be Needed
One technology that lab and healthcare system leaders can use to control costs and staffing involves online real-time tracking of drivers to enhance test turnaround time and determine when tests will be performed.
Lab Logistics’ version of this technology uses barcode scanning, GPS (Global Positioning System) tracking, and an online portal that enables its clients to view the routes and stops a driver has made for the lab. Lab leaders can determine how many specimens are expected, and what type of tests will be required, before the specimens arrive.
“They can see the volume coming in and they can staff-up based on the information we are giving them and not over-staff. It’s really good information,” Uihlein said.
Lab Logistics’ platform also integrates with a hospital’s laboratory information system (LIS) through the lab’s barcode. “The integration makes it possible for labs to get faster information from the field into their systems and create accessioning,” Uihlein explained.
Specimen Management Improved through Route Tracking
“We found that some drivers were doing daily pickups and we were not getting any specimens. Some clients were on vacation, stopped using the laboratory altogether, or weren’t doing that type of laboratory work anymore,” Napolitano told the white paper researchers.
Driver tracking also enabled Ochsner Health System in Louisiana to avoid “hot shots”—one-time delivery pickups which could be 90 miles away from the lab, explained Lloyd Gravois, Assistant Vice President of Logistics-Supply Chain, in the white paper.
Medical laboratory leaders who wish to enhance their lab’s specimen management and solve logistics issues during and after the COVID-19 pandemic are encouraged to download a copy of the Free Special Edition white paper by clicking here, or by placing this URL in their web browsers: https://www.darkdaily.com/free-special-edition-white-paper-specimen-management-and-logistics-issues-to-evaluate-for-continuous-quality-improvement-3-high-risk-medical-courier-support-services/.
Goal of his foundation is to provide access to COVID-19 medical laboratory tests for first responders, as well as low-cost tests to the general public
Early in April, when many of the nation’s clinical laboratories were facing numerous challenges in their attempts to obtain adequate supplies for collecting, transporting, and testing for COVID-19, a Hollywood actor was funding his foundation and obtaining enough supplies for his foundation to offer access to COVID-19 testing to residents in his community of Malibu—as well as in other areas.
In many ways, local medical laboratories that offer COVID-19 tests are competing with actor/philanthropist Sean Penn’s Community Organized Relief Effort (CORE) foundation for the supplies they need to provide COVID-19 testing to the patients in their own communities. The non-profit organization says it is working with various healthcare providers to provide free coronavirus testing to first responders, and low-cost testing to the general public, in eleven cities and counties in California, Georgia, North Carolina, and Illinois.
In fact, the volume of COVID-19 testing CORE currently provides is large enough that The Hollywood Report published a story on June 3, titled, “How Sean Penn Made the Biggest COVID-19 Testing Site in U.S.” The article stated that, “In late May, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced the opening of a new COVID-19 testing site at Dodger Stadium in partnership with CORE, the Los Angeles Dodgers, Live Nation Entertainment, Red Rock Entertainment, and the Los Angeles Fire Department. Operated by CORE and LAFD, this site has capacity to test 6,000 residents a day free of charge––making it three times the size of any other location in L.A. County and said to be the largest testing site in the U.S.”
The Reporter did not make the distinction that the Dodger Stadium site is only collecting specimens. And, no news accounts of the CORE COVID-19 testing program names the clinical laboratories that CORE currently uses to perform the coronavirus tests for the specimens it collects.
CORE Partnered with Private Healthcare Provider Elevated Health
CORE first got underway in 2010 providing disaster relief following the catastrophic magnitude 7.0 earthquake in Haiti. It was known then as the Jenkins-Penn Haitian Relief Organization (J/P HRO). The foundation initiated its support of COVID-19 testing efforts in California in April, reported the Orange County Register (OCR). At that time, testing was much more limited than it is today and drive-thru testing in most areas in America was not available.
Elevated Health’s COVID Clinic website enables consumers to complete pre-test enrollment and payment before arriving at the drive-up testing site at the Westminster Mall.
“Right now, hospitals have very strict guidelines on who can be tested. Public health departments are overwhelmed and possibly underfunded. That’s where I’m trying to bridge the gap,” Matthew Abinante, DO, a doctor of osteopathy and Elevated Health’s founder and CEO, told the OCR.
The coronavirus test kits Elevated Health uses are made in China and were purchased from Georgia-based HealthTrackRx. According to Abinante, they are “FDA authorized, but not FDA approved,” reported the OCR.
Clinical laboratory leaders may be intrigued to see consumers waiting their turn at drive-through testing lines as they take COVID-19 diagnosis into their own hands. Sites like the one above run by Elevated Health at the Westminster Mall demonstrate that people are willing to patronize providers that serve their needs directly. (Photo copyright: Orange County Register.)
CORE Aims to Be a Model for Partnering in Testing
Though CORE’s COVID-19 testing relief efforts are no longer limited to Los Angeles County, that is where it all began. Specimen collection at drive-through sites for COVID-19 tests initially prioritized first responders and essential workers. CORE funds provided for a staff of 70 people at four of the 35 drive-thru specimen collection sites in LA, reported CBS Los Angeles(CBSLA).
CORE-funded services also made it possible for Los Angeles city employees—who were running the drive-thru specimen collection sites—to return to their primary jobs as emergency first responders, reported the Associated Press (AP).
“It’s something that we can adapt to very quickly with the training of the Los Angeles Fire Department initially. And we’re able to take all those firemen and put them back in to serve the people in the way that we need them to,” said Penn in the AP article.
At that time, city officials planned to perform 10,000 tests a day, Deputy Mayor Jeff Gorell, JD, told the LA Times. The City of Los Angeles purchased the tests and CORE covered the cost of staff, volunteers, and personal protective equipment (PPE), reported the LA Times.
“We have servers and people from the Peace Corps, actresses—a lot of people from the communities where the test site is. We’re trying to hire as much locally as possible,” Ann Lee, CORE’s Chief Executive Officer, told Business Insider.
CORE also partnered with the City of Malibu in western Los Angeles County to provide mobile COVID-19 testing services for the city’s 3,000 residents, first responders, and essential workers from April 6 to 17 at a testing site at Malibu City Hall.
“This is what I hope will be a model in terms of the government and community foundation partnerships that can be replicated not only in the city of Los Angeles and throughout California, but throughout the country,” Sean Penn (above at the COVID-19 drive-thru testing site in Malibu, Calif.), founder of CORE, told CBSLA. Since making that statement, CORE has gone on to partner with healthcare providers in three other states to provide coronavirus drive-thru specimen collection. (Photo copyright: Associated Press/ABC News.)
Should Drive-Through Testing Continue Post-Pandemic?
An April Dark Daily e-briefing reported on drive-thru COVID-19 specimen collection operations across 30 states. The e-briefing also noted that drive-thru collections protects medical laboratory professionals and emergency department staff from possible exposure to infectious agents.
It’s likely many industries—from education and retail to travel and restaurants—will be revamped as a result of the pandemic. Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists will want to study the different approaches used to develop drive-through COVID-19 specimen collection; how some providers that ran them partnered with charitable organizations such as CORE; why drive-thru specimen collection appeals to consumers; and how it may improve phlebotomists’ safety and increase clinical laboratory business.
