Rapid evidence review to inform safe return to campus in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted predominantly through the air in crowded and unventilated indoor spaces among unvaccinated people. Universities and colleges are potential settings for its spread. Methods: An interdisciplinary team from public health, virology, and biology used narrative methods to summarise and synthesise evidence on key control measures, taking account of mode of transmission. Results: Evidence from a wide range of primary studies supports six measures. Vaccinate (aim for > 90% coverage and make it easy to get a jab). Require masks indoors, especially in crowded settings. If everyone wears well-fitting cloth masks, source control will be high, but for maximum self-protection, respirator masks should be worn. Masks should not be removed for speaking or singing. Space people out by physical distancing (but there is no “safe” distance because transmission risk varies with factors such as ventilation, activity levels and crowding), reducing class size (including offering blended learning), and cohorting (students remain in small groups with no cross-mixing). Clean indoor air using engineering controls—ventilation (while monitoring CO2 levels), inbuilt filtration systems, or portable air cleaners fitted with high efficiency particulate air [HEPA] filters). Test asymptomatic staff and students using lateral flow tests, with tracing and isolating infectious cases when incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is high. Support clinically vulnerable people to work remotely. There is no direct evidence to support hand sanitising, fomite controls or temperature-taking. There is evidence that freestanding plastic screens, face visors and electronic air-cleaning systems are ineffective. Conclusions: The above six evidence-based measures should be combined into a multi-faceted strategy to maximise both student safety and the continuation of in-person and online education provision. Staff and students seeking to negotiate a safe working and learning environment should collect data (e.g. CO2 levels, room occupancy) to inform conversations.

COVID-19 safe campus evaluation for universities by a hybrid interval type-2 fuzzy decision-making model

“…Sousan et al ( 2021 ), Dhama et al ( 2021 ) Reducing touch It means limiting the use of common materials, preventing contact as much as possible to reduce the virus’s spread, and ensuring the disinfection of common materials at frequent intervals. It also includes measures to reduce the number of people in the environment and to use personal protective equipment McGee et al ( 2021 ), Esmaeilzadeh ( 2022 ), World Health Organization ( 2020a ) Social distance In order to prevent the spread of the disease, it means taking measures such as keeping the number of patients at a level that will not force the health system, making capacity plans, restricting mobility, providing different entrance and exit doors, and not speaking loudly in the environment Poole et al ( 2021 ), D’Orazio et al ( 2021 ), Kobayashi et al ( 2020 ), Shen et al ( 2021 ), Byrne et al ( 2020 ), McGee et al ( 2021 ), Wilson et al ( 2020 ), Mossa-Basha et al ( 2020 ), Greenhalgh et al ( 2021 ), Fischetti et al ( 2021 ), Bartolucci et al ( 2022 ), Ugail et al ( 2021 ) Planning Training plans It covers the education plans for the personnel of higher education institutions, students, and visitors Lordan et al ( 2021 ), Wilson et al ( 2020 ), Chisita et al ( 2022 ) Emergency action plan It covers the plans made to be able to organize immediately, intervene regularly, ensure that the institution remains operational, and minimize the damages that may arise in case of a diagnosis and/or suspicion of contagious disease among staff and students Izumi et al ( 2020 ) Infection and control plans It covers the necessary arrangements and plans to minimize the risk of people encountering the virus Poole et al ( 2021 ), Shen et al ( 2021 ), Wilson et al ( 2020 ), Esmaeilzadeh ( 2022 ), Cohen et al ( 2021 ) Cleaning plans …”

“…Universities faced many challenges with the decision to offer face-to-face education during the COVID-19 pandemic. When the studies on the creation of a safe campus in the literature are examined, it is seen that studies have focused on effective measures to make face-to-face education safer during the COVID-19 pandemic (Cardonha et al 2022 ; Greenhalgh et al 2021 ; Muller and Muller 2021 ; Gillespie et al 2021 ). Wilson et al ( 2020 ), while studying the reliability of the measures taken at university A in North Carolina and the reasons for the increase in cases, Rafiq et al ( 2021 ), on the other hand, conducted a study to determine the service models, strategies, and role of university libraries during the COVID-19 epidemic.…”

“…In addition to educational activities, academic research, various services, and administrative activities are also carried out on the campuses. Therefore, in controlling the COVID-19 epidemic by higher education institutions, the risks should be determined in terms of education and their fields of activity, and measures should be taken accordingly (Greenhalgh et al 2021 ). In this context, a checklist has been published by the Turkish Standards Institute in order to contribute to the development of the necessary infrastructure for the development of safe and clean environments in universities, to ensure hygienic conditions, to implement and follow infection control measures, and to determine general standards, within the scope of combating the global COVID-19 epidemic and infectious diseases.…”

Safe university: a guide for open academic institutions through the pandemic

“…Classroom air safety can be evaluated by carbon dioxide detectors: One could stratify CO2 detector values as follows: values <700 parts per million (ppm) are indicative of a clean environment, 700-800 ppm indicative of need for transient window opening, 800-1000 pm indicative of further J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f actions including portable air cleaning devices, while levels above 1000 ppm are considered of very high transmission risk and in need of multiple additional interventions [4]. Technical air cleaners vary according to their hourly air cleaning capacity, noise levels, and optimal position in a specific classroom.…”

A review of facilities management interventions to mitigate respiratory infections in existing buildings

“…They are, however, usually limited in the scope of covered FM activities and building types because of a different research focus rather than FM. For example, some reviews focused more on organisational and healthcare interventions [ 7 , 30 ]; Several reviews focused on IAQ controls [ 19 , 31 , 32 ], while some focused on a specific technology, such as UVGI [ 33 , 34 ] or HEPA filtering [ 35 , 36 ], leaving gaps in other FM activities that may contribute to infection control. Therefore, this research attempts to bridge the gap by providing an overview of existing academic studies on FM intervention for infection control from the perspective of a Facilities Manager.…”