Sustaining University Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic

JAMA Network Open

IMPORTANCE The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted US educational institutions. Given potential adverse financial and psychosocial effects of campus closures, many institutions developed strategies to reopen campuses in the fall 2020 semester despite the ongoing threat of COVID-19. However, many institutions opted to have limited campus reopening to minimize potential risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE To analyze how Boston University (BU) fully reopened its campus in the fall of 2020 and controlled COVID-19 transmission despite worsening transmission in Boston, Massachusetts. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multifaceted intervention case series was conducted at a large urban university campus in Boston, Massachusetts, during the fall 2020 semester. The BU response included a high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing facility with capacity to deliver results in less than 24 hours; routine asymptomatic screening for COVID-19; daily health attestations; adherence monitoring and feedback; robust contact tracing, quarantine, and isolation in on-campus facilities; face mask use; enhanced hand hygiene; social distancing recommendations; dedensification of classrooms and public places; and enhancement of all building air systems. Data were analyzed from December 20, 2020, to January 31, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis confirmed by reverse transcriptionpolymerase chain reaction of anterior nares specimens and sources of transmission, as determined through contact tracing. RESULTS Between August and December 2020, BU conducted more than 500 000 COVID-19 tests and identified 719 individuals with COVID-19, including 496 students (69.0%), 11 faculty (1.5%), and 212 staff (29.5%). Overall, 718 individuals, or 1.8% of the BU community, had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of 837 close contacts traced, 86 individuals (10.3%) had test results positive for COVID-19. BU contact tracers identified a source of transmission for 370 individuals (51.5%), with 206 individuals (55.7%) identifying a non-BU source. Among 5 faculty and 84 staff with SARS-CoV-2 with a known source of infection, most reported a transmission source outside of BU (all 5 faculty members [100%] and 67 staff members [79.8%]). A BU source was identified by 108 of 183 undergraduate students with SARS-CoV-2 (59.0%) and 39 of 98 graduate students with SARS-CoV-2 (39.8%); notably, no transmission was traced to a classroom setting. (continued) Key Points Question Can a multifaceted approach lead to control of COVID-19 transmission and spread on an urban campus? Findings In this case series including more than 500 000 COVID-19 tests and 719 individuals with COVID-19 at Boston University, active surveillance of campus populations, isolation of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection, early and vigorous contact tracing and quarantine, regular communication, robust data systems, and strong leadership were associated with minimal transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Most transmission occurred off campus, and there was no evidence of classroom transmission. Meaning These findings suggest that using frequent testing, vigorous contact tracing, rapid isolation and quarantine, and a strong leadership structure to ensure rapid decision-making and adaption to emerging data, controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 on an urban campus was feasible despite worsening local transmission during the semester.

2021

ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely disrupted United States educational institutions. Given potential adverse financial psychosocial effects of campus closures, many institutions developed strategies to reopen campuses in the fall despite the ongoing threat of COVID-19. Many however opted to have limited campus re-opening in order to minimize potential risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2.ObjectiveTo analyze how Boston University (BU) fully reopened its campus in the fall of 2020 and controlled COVID-19 transmission despite worsening transmission in the city of Boston.DesignMulti-faceted intervention case study.SettingLarge urban university campus.InterventionsThe BU response included a high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing facility with capacity to delivery results in less than 24 hours; routine asymptomatic screening for COVID-19; daily health attestations; compliance monitoring and feedback; robust contact tracing, quarantine and isolation in on campu...

Journal of Loss and Trauma

While universities regularly face emergency situations that affect their operations, the global disruption caused by COVID-19 is unprecedented, presenting unique challenges to universities. This article describes the initial stages of crisis response at a large research-intensive university in the center of a diverse international city. Structural, operational, social/ psychological, and communication challenges have shifted during five phases we experienced in COVID-19: preplanning, approaching crisis, immediate crisis, prolonged uncertainty, and planning for restart and recovery. Key to managing challenges is clear but flexible incident management structures, and constant interaction and collaboration among groups addressing varying aspects of the operation.

2021

2021

University settings have demonstrated potential for COVID-19 outbreaks, as they can combine congregate living, substantial social activity, and a young population predisposed to mild illness. Using genomic and epidemiologic data, we describe a COVID-19 outbreak at the University of Wisconsin (UW)–Madison. During August – October 2020, 3,485 students tested positive, including 856/6,162 students living in residence halls. Case counts began rising during move-in week for on-campus students (August 25-31, 2020), then rose rapidly during September 1-11, 2020. UW-Madison initiated multiple prevention efforts, including quarantining two residence halls; a subsequent decline in cases was observed. Genomic surveillance of cases from Dane County, where UW-Madison is located, did not find evidence of transmission from a large cluster of cases in the two residence halls quarantined during the outbreak. Coordinated implementation of prevention measures can effectively reduce SARS-CoV-2 spread i...

PLOS ONE, 2021

Background University students have higher average number of contacts than the general population. Students returning to university campuses may exacerbate COVID-19 dynamics in the surrounding community. Methods We developed a dynamic transmission model of COVID-19 in a mid-sized city currently experiencing a low infection rate. We evaluated the impact of 20,000 university students arriving on September 1 in terms of cumulative COVID-19 infections, time to peak infections, and the timing and peak level of critical care occupancy. We also considered how these impacts might be mitigated through screening interventions targeted to students. Results If arriving students reduce their contacts by 40% compared to pre-COVID levels, the total number of infections in the community increases by 115% (from 3,515 to 7,551), with 70% of the incremental infections occurring in the general population, and an incremental 19 COVID-19 deaths. Screening students every 5 days reduces the number of infections attributable to the student population by 42% and the total COVID-19 deaths by 8. One-time mass screening of students prevents fewer infections than 5-day screening, but is more efficient, requiring 196 tests needed to avert one infection instead of 237. Interpretation University students are highly interconnected with the surrounding off-campus community. Screening targeted at this population provides significant public health benefits to the community through averted infections, critical care admissions, and COVID-19 deaths.

2020

There are more than 50,000 students enrolled at the University of Texas at Austin (UT), with an estimated 80% from Texas, 93% from the United States, and 7% from abroad. The 2020-2021 academic year is scheduled to begin on August 26th. The university is taking steps to reopen safely in light of four COVID-19-related risks: Introduction risks : UT students returning to Austin from other cities may arrive infected. On-campus transmission risks : Transmission may occur during classes and other organized UT activities. Off-campus transmission risks : Transmission may occur through off-campus interactions among members of the UT community. Community amplification risks : Transmission may spill over from the UT community into the surrounding Austin community. In order to assist the University of Texas at Austin in safely reopening, this report addresses elements of the first three risks. It provides estimates for (i) the prevalence of COVID-19 among returning students, based on the estimated prevalence of the virus in their home communities, (ii) the number of students that could test positive for COVID-19 in the first week of classes, and (iii) the chance that classes/gatherings will include one or more infected attendees, depending on the size of the group.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

With limited COVID-19-guidelines for institutions of higher education (IHEs), colleges and universities began the 2020–2021 academic year with varying approaches. We present a comprehensive COVID-19 prevention and mitigation approach at a residential university during the 2020–2021 academic year, along with campus SARS-CoV-2 transmission during this time. Risk management of COVID-19 was facilitated through (1) a layered approach of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention measures; (2) a robust committee structure leveraging institutional public health expertise; (3) partnerships with external health entities; and (4) an operations system providing both structure and flexibility to adapt to changes in disease activity, scientific evidence, and public health guidelines. These efforts collectively allowed the university to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission on campus and complete the academic year offering in-person learning on a residential campus. We identified 36 cases of COVID-19...

Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2021

S evere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19), can spread rapidly within congregate settings, including institutions of higher education (IHEs) (1,2). During August-December 2020, as IHEs around the United States resumed in-person instruction, IHE-associated SARS-CoV-2 cases began to rise (3). By February 2021, >530,000 COVID-19 cases linked to US IHEs had been identifi ed (4). In many IHE settings populated substantially by young adults 18-24 years of age (5), susceptibility to severe COVID-19 is lower than for older populations (>65 years of age) (6). Adhering to physical distancing is also challenging for young adults, for whom interaction with peers and social networks is important (7). As students returned to in-person learning, highdensity clustering within on-campus housing may have increased transmission and resulted in commu

Medical Teacher, 2020

Background: The Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). We state the consolidated and systematic approach for academic medical centres in response to the evolving pandemic outbreaks for sustaining medical education. Discussion: Academic medical centres need to establish a 'COVID-19 response team' in order to make time-sensitive decisions while managing pandemic threats. Major themes of medical education management include leveraging on remote or decentralised modes of medical education delivery, maintaining the integrity of formative and summative assessments while restructuring patient-contact components, and developing action plans for maintenance of essential activities based on pandemic risk alert levels. These core principles must be applied seamlessly across the various fraternities of academic centres: undergraduate education, residency training, continuous professional development and research. Key decisions from the pandemic response teams that help to minimise major disruptions in medical education and to control disease transmissions include: minimising inter-cluster cross contaminations and plans for segregation within and among cohorts; reshuffling academic calendars; postponing or restructuring assessments. Conclusions: While minimising the transmission of the pandemic outbreak within the healthcare establishments is paramount, medical education and research activities cannot come to a standstill each time there is a threat of one.