Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 28, Number 9—September 2022
Research Letter

Effect of Frequent SARS-CoV-2 Testing on Weekly Case Rates in Long-Term Care Facilities, Florida, USA

Lao-Tzu Allan-BlitzComments to Author , Belal Aboabdo, Isaac Turner, and Jeffrey D. KlausnerComments to Author 
Author affiliations: Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (L.-T. Allan-Blitz); Curative Inc., San Dimas, California, USA (B. Aboabdo, I. Turner); University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA (J.D. Klausner)

Cite This Article


We analyzed 1,292,165 SARS-CoV-2 test results from residents and employees of 361 long-term care facilities in Florida, USA. A 1% increase in testing resulted in a 0.08% reduction in cases 3 weeks after testing began. Increasing SARS-CoV-2 testing frequency is a viable tool for reducing virus transmission in these facilities.

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in the United States have suffered a disproportionate number of deaths from SARS-CoV-2 (1). Testing frequency and result turnaround times may be more relevant than test sensitivity for infection control (2,3), information that might be used to guide infection control efforts in congregate living facilities (4). Semimonthly testing for SARS-CoV-2 was mandated in Florida, USA, for all employees and residents of skilled nursing, elder care, and assisted living facilities beginning June 7, 2020 (5). Comparing data from before and after the mandate took effect, we evaluated the effect of testing frequency on weekly SARS-CoV-2 case rates in a real-world setting.

We analyzed deidentified test results from Florida LTCFs during June 2020–April 2021, aggregated with the Nursing Home Provider Information dataset (6), which includes the number of facility beds and staff and average aid hours per resident. We further combined our dataset with Johns Hopkins University SARS-CoV-2 time-series data on rates of hospitalization and death (7). For the duration of the study period, only care facility staff were permitted entry to the facilities to limit potential sources of infection.

We used a generalized linear mixed regression model with weekly cases as a negative binomial random count variable to assess how the independent variables affected test positivity. We created a naive model based on frequency of SARS-CoV-2 on the day before the start of semimonthly testing to establish a baseline from which to forecast change. We then regressed weekly positive cases from the date semimonthly testing began (given heterogeneity in compliance, modeled as percentage increase in number of tests above baseline), cases from the preceding week, new cases per 100,000 persons in the county, total tests per occupied bed (a surrogate for compliance with semimonthly testing), number of certified beds in the facility, total nurse staffing hours per resident per day (as a surrogate for quality of care), and whether the date of infection was after January 1, 2021, to control for vaccination effects. We analyzed the date that semimonthly testing began as distinct weeks preceding any change in average weekly SARS-CoV-2 cases to investigate a potential time-delay between onset of testing and any potential reduction in case rate. We log transformed all variables except number of cases in the preceding week. We applied a random effect for each nursing home. We performed all analyses using R statistical software ( Review of deidentified data was deemed exempt from institutional review.

We analyzed 1,292,165 SARS-CoV-2 RNA test results from residents and employees among 361 facilities located across 247 Florida postal codes. The average age (+SD) of the study population was 49 years (+31). The average number of new cases among all LTCFs in Florida was 187.9 per week (+148.7), an estimated 0.7 tests/week/occupied bed (+16.2). The average test turnaround time from laboratory receipt was 17.1 hours (+10.4). The average number of tests completed per week was 31,454 (+10,926).

In multivariable analysis, a 1% increase in testing frequency resulted in a 0.08% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 cases (Table). On the basis of the coefficients from the multivariable model, we predicted that a 10% increase in testing frequency would result in a 1% reduction in the weekly long-term care facility case rate among residents. Assuming generalizability on the basis of similar characteristics between LTCFs in our dataset and those reported by the Nursing Home Provider Information dataset (6), that reduction would result in 126 fewer cases per week, or 6,552 fewer cases per year, among LTCF residents across the United States.

Our findings suggest that even a 1% increase in testing might be an effective strategy for combating the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among LTCF residents, although results likely would not emerge until ≈3 weeks after the increase. In the initial 1–2 weeks after semimonthly testing began, isolation and contact tracing interventions likely had not had sufficient time to substantially reduce viral transmission. Conversely, increased testing frequency >3 weeks before data collection was likely too remote to affect case estimates for a given week. A similar finding has been reported; a SARS-CoV-2 infection outbreak in a 135-bed facility was contained predominantly through serial testing of all residents and staff every 3–5 days (8). Routine testing is furthermore necessary to identify presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases, which could account for up to 40% of new infections (9) and contribute substantially to transmission. Additional studies should evaluate the cost per case prevented of strategies employing varying frequencies of testing to guide use of testing programs among LTCFs.

Our study was limited by the absence of details on interventions started in response to positive tests or whether test samples were from employees or residents. We also were unable to account for concomitant local or statewide interventions such as mask mandates, resident spacing, or indoor ventilation, which might have confounded the effects of testing frequency. Thus, our findings cannot definitively attribute the reduction in case rates to increased testing frequency. However, the large sample size and number of LTCFs included in the analysis, which controlled for several notable confounders, lend credibility to our findings. We advocate increasing SARS-CoV-2 testing frequency as a viable tool for reducing transmission in LTCFs.

Dr. Allan-Blitz is a resident physician in internal medicine and pediatrics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Boston Children’s Hospital. His research focuses on infectious diseases and health equity, specifically in resource-limited settings.



The authors acknowledge Mitchel Roznik and the state of Florida government for contributions to the project.

This research was supported in part by a gift to the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California by the W.M. Keck Foundation.

L.-T.A.-B. served as a consultant for and Belal Aboabdo is an employee of Curative Inc. I.T. is chief technology officer and cofounder of Curative Inc. J.D.K. served as an independent medical director for Curative Inc.



  1. Thomas  KS, Zhang  W, Dosa  DM, Carder  P, Sloane  P, Zimmerman  S. Estimation of excess mortality rates among us assisted living residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2113411. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Larremore  DB, Wilder  B, Lester  E, Shehata  S, Burke  JM, Hay  JA, et al. Test sensitivity is secondary to frequency and turnaround time for COVID-19 screening. Sci Adv. 2021;7:eabd5393. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Mina  MJ, Parker  R, Larremore  DB. Rethinking Covid-19 test sensitivity—a strategy for containment. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:e120. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Holmdahl  I, Kahn  R, Hay  JA, Buckee  CO, Mina  MJ. Estimation of transmission of COVID-19 in simulated nursing homes with frequent testing and immunity-based staffing. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2110071. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Agency for Health Care Administration. Florida. Rule 59AER20–5 mandatory testing for nursing home staff [cited 2021 Jun 22].
  6. Centers for Medicare Services. COVID-19 nursing home data [cited 2021 Jun 1].
  7. Dong  E, Du  H, Gardner  L. An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20:5334. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Escobar  DJ, Lanzi  M, Saberi  P, Love  R, Linkin  DR, Kelly  JJ, et al. Mitigation of a COVID-19 outbreak in a nursing home through serial testing of residents and staff. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72:e3946. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Louie  JK, Scott  HM, DuBois  A, Sturtz  N, Lu  W, Stoltey  J, et al.; San Francisco Department of Public Health COVID-19 Skilled Nursing Facility Outbreak Response Team. Lessons From mass-testing for coronavirus disease 2019 in long-term care facilities for the elderly in San Francisco. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72:201820. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar




Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid2809.212577

Original Publication Date: August 01, 2022

Table of Contents – Volume 28, Number 9—September 2022

EID Search Options
presentation_01 Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
presentation_01 Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
presentation_01 Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.



Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Lao-Tzu Allan-Blitz, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA

Send To

10000 character(s) remaining.


Page created: July 12, 2022
Page updated: August 19, 2022
Page reviewed: August 19, 2022
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.