|
Evaluation of point of entry surveillance for COVID-19 at Mumbai international airport, India, July 2020
Khyati Aroskar1, Rajesh Sahu2, Sushma Choudhary3, Achhelal R Pasi4, Pragati Gaikwad5, Tanzin Dikid6
1 India Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Epidemiology Division, National Centre for Disease Control, New Delhi, India
2 Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
3 Program Adviser, South Asia Field Epidemiology Network (SAFETYNET), India
4 Joint Director, Airport Health Officer, Airport Health Organization, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
5 Deputy Airport Health Officer, Airport Health Organization, Mumbai, India
6 Joint Director, Epidemiology Division, National Centre for Disease Control, New Delhi, India
Correspondence Address:
Khyati Aroskar
India Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Epidemiology Division, National Centre for Disease Control, 22, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi - 110 054
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ijph.ijph_1487_21
|
|
India started Point of entry (PoE) surveillance at Mumbai International Airport, screening passengers returning from coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-affected countries using infrared thermometers. We evaluated in July 2020 for March 1–22 with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention evaluation framework. We conducted key informant interviews, reviewed passenger self-reporting forms (SRFs) (randomly selected) and relevant Airport Health Organization and Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP) records. Of screened 165,882 passengers, three suspects were detected and all were reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction negative. Passengers under-quarantine line-listing not available in paper-based PoE system, eight written complaints: 6/8 SRF filling inconvenience, 3/8 no SRF filling inflight announcements, and standing in long queues for their submission. Outside staff deployed 128/150 (85.3%), and staff: passenger ratio was 1:300. IDSP reported 59 COVID-19 confirmed cases against zero detected at PoE. It was simple, timely, flexible, and useful in providing information to IDSP but missed cases at PoE and had poor stability. We recommended dedicated workforce and data integration with IDSP.
|
