evaluation of the lateral flow device testing pilot for

2020

MERTHYR TYDFIL COUNTY

BOROUGH

&

LOWER CYNON VALLEY

(RHONDDA CYNON TAF

COUNTY BOROUGH)

Evaluation of the Lateral Flow Device Testing Pilot for COVID-19 in Merthyr Tydfil and the

lower Cynon Valley

1 | P a g e

SECTION CONTENT PAGE

1 Foreword

3

2 Executive summary

5

3 Introduction 3.1 Purpose 3.2 Pilot aims and objectives 3.3 Demography of pilot areas

3.3.1 Deprivation in pilot areas 3.3.2 Black and ethnic minority populations

3.4 Epidemiology of COVID-19 in the pilot areas 3.4.1 Positivity rates and lockdowns

3.5 Testing strategy 3.6 Hypothesis to test through assessment of mass testing

9

4 Governance, planning and implementation 4.1 Governance 4.2 Planning 4.3 Implementation

17

5 Logistics 5.1 Community based testing

5.1.1 Home testing arrangements

5.2 Contact tracing 5.3 Protect

5.3.1 Cwm Taf Morgannwg Self Isolation Helpline

26

6 Schools based testing – Merthyr Tydfil and lower Cynon Valley 6.1 Communication and engagement 6.2 Secondary school mass testing – Merthyr Tydfil 6.3 Secondary school mass testing – lower Cynon Valley 6.4 Resources

6.4.1 Workforce resources 6.4.2 Logistical resources 6.4.3 Financial resources

6.5 Testing and analysis of uptake outcomes 6.5.1 Uptake 6.5.2 Positivity rate by age group

6.6 Comparisons, learning from other areas 6.7 Systems and process working

37

7 Resources 7.1 Workforce resources 7.2 Logistical resources

7.2.1 Physical infrastructure 7.2.2 Equipment and support services

53

2 | P a g e

7.3 Financial resources

8 Analysis of testing uptake and outcomes 8.1 Uptake of testing

8.1.2 Age and gender 8.1.3 Deprivation 8.1.4 Occupation

8.2 Positivity 8.3 Lateral Flow Device tests 8.4 Estimated cases, hospitalisations and deaths prevented 8.5 Economic evaluation 8.6 Waste water testing

65

9 Communication and engagement 9.1 Merthyr Tydfil 9.2 Lower Cynon Valley

97

10 Operational research for risk factors in transmission including behavioural insight 10.1 Case control study

104

11 Comparisons – learning from other areas 11.1 Liverpool 11.2 Scotland

107

12 Conclusions

113

13 Recommendations

117

14 Contributors

123

15 Appendices

124

Date of publication

22nd March 2021 (Version 1)

25th March 2021 (Version 2)

3 | P a g e

1. FOREWORD

Dear Colleague

It gives me great pleasure, as the Senior Responsible Officer for the Cwm Taf Morgannwg Test Trace

Protect Service and Director of Public Health for Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, to

present this evaluation report on the Whole Area Testing pilot we ran in November and December

2020, in the County Borough of Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley area of Rhondda Cynon Taf

County Borough.

The last 12 months have been a ‘roller-coaster’ for us all. As the COVID-19 pandemic hit, we have all

had to make sacrifices in our lives, both as individuals, communities and as a nation, standing together.

As public services, together with the support of government, Military, the Third Sector and private

sector partners, we have had to rapidly establish Test Trace Protect services to help prevent the spread

of the virus and to protect our most vulnerable people living in our communities. This has been a huge

testament to partnership working across Wales and certainly within our region. The collective effort

which has gone into the development and running of these services has been remarkable, given all

the challenges we have faced so far, and I must express my sincere thanks to all partners and

communities involved.

The implementation of a testing service to detect the COVID-19 virus has been part of that enormous

effort. Initially we had been testing those individuals who had COVID-19 symptoms and encouraging

them to come forward for a PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test. More recently, technologies have

developed and we are now able to offer individuals without symptoms an LFD (Lateral Flow Device)

test. These test can provide results in as little as thirty minutes or less, whereas a PCR test usually

takes between 24-48 hours, as it is done in a laboratory.

It was this pioneering use of LFD tests that we wanted to pilot in some of our communities, particularly

those at the time who were experiencing some very high and stubborn COVID-19 incidence and

positivity rates. One of our main reasons for doing this was to support these local communities in their

efforts to stop and reduce the community spread of COVID-19 to as low as reasonably possible, in

order to save lives, save livelihoods and businesses.

I must pay testament to our partners and communities in the implementation of this pilot. This was

very much locally led and driven, with excellent leadership from both Local Authorities, great

involvement from the Third Sector and Military, and fantastic team-working on the ground. Particular

mention should be made in both areas to the dedication and hard work of all teams pulling together

to deliver a challenging pilot in terms of logistics and communication in such a tight timescale. For

many staff this was in addition to their ‘day jobs’ and involved working seven days a week for the

planning and implementation periods.

4 | P a g e

I know there are concerns expressed about LFD testing and how accurate a test it is, which the report

usefully provides further details on; however there are also some key benefits which we wanted to

explore further, as part of working with and supporting our communities.

In its conclusion therefore, I am pleased to see that the evaluation report demonstrates that as well

as having good community support and attendance rates for LFD testing, most importantly this had

an immediate, positive impact on the level of COVID-19 circulating in those communities and would

likely have contributed to the subsequent decline in COVID-19 case rates which occurred, following

the testing pilot and the introduction of the national lockdown, implemented on 20th December 2020.

The report usefully demonstrates that an estimated 353 cases (both asymptomatic and symptomatic),

24 hospitalisations, 5 ICU admissions and 14 deaths, that would have otherwise occurred without the

implementation of the pilot, were prevented.

These are exciting conclusions and whilst LFD testing is not perfect, I hope this report will help inform

the future potential use of LFD testing, as part of a wider testing strategy. It has the potential to be a

key part of our whole Test Trace Protect system as we look more confidently towards recovery in

Wales and it provides useful learning from experience for other areas who may be considering

implementing a similar approach.

Professor Kelechi Nnoaham MD, DPhil, FFPH

Executive Director of Public Health

5 | P a g e

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf have been the Welsh Local Authorities with the highest

incidence rates of COVID-19 in the UK along with associated illness and deaths. The Welsh Index of

Multiple Deprivation shows that Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley have some of the most

deprived areas in Wales. In addition, smoking rates are high in both areas in comparison to the health

board and the Welsh average, and there are high levels of overweight and obesity and higher

prevalence of long term conditions. These factors are all inevitably associated with the poor outcomes

we have seen.

Pilot aims and objectives

In the context of persistently high rates and with the agreement and support of Welsh Government,

the Whole Area Testing Pilot (WATP) was set up and led by the Cwm Taf Morgannwg (CTM) Test Trace

Protect (TTP) Service, which reports into the group of Local Authority and Health Board Leaders/Chair

and Chief Executives in CTM. The Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for the pilot was the CTM Director

of Public Health/Chair of the CTM TTP Service. The Military worked closely with the TTP service to

deliver the pilot to explore the potential for mass testing.

The aims of the pilot were agreed as follows:

1. To test whether or not large-scale testing using LFD can yield a significant and sustained reduction

in community transmission.

2. To make testing accessible to an agreed area(s) entire population and incentivise uptake.

3. To identify index cases and prevent further transmission through contact-tracing and other

measures.

4. To protect those at highest risk.

5. To empower the local community to arrest and reduce the community spread to as low as

reasonably possible in order to save lives and save livelihoods and businesses.

6. To identify those who are needlessly self-isolating and empower them to return to usual activities.

7. To assess the impact of testing on behaviour of participant.

The objectives of the pilot were to:

1. Develop a blueprint for whole town, city, borough or regional testing.

2. Better understand prevalence via asymptomatic surveillance.

3. Develop an intelligence picture and use asymptomatic testing to limit an agreed area’s

acceleration through enhanced restrictions escalation.

4. Deploy new technologies in an agile and scalable way.

Planning and Implementation

A working group was established to lead the pilot, chaired by the SRO and members included

representation from the two Local Authorities involved, the University Health Board (UHB), Welsh

Government, Welsh Ambulance Service Trust, Police, Local Resilience Forum, Military and the Third

6 | P a g e

Sector. The group met daily, including weekends, during the planning, implementation and early

delivery period of the pilot due to the intensity of the work required and tight timescale.

A number of critical elements assisted the set-up. These included the development of the Concept of

Operations, a draft template clinical standard operating procedure (SOP), the development of a Whole

Area Testing pilot over-arching Standard Operating Procedure, the Military Planning Aide memoir and

Maintenance of a ‘Lessons Learned Log’. Comprehensive communications and engagement plans

were also developed.

Implementation of the pilot was very much locally led and driven. In the Merthyr Tydfil area,

implementation was led by the Local Authority in partnership with the Military. In the lower Cynon

Valley, where the pilot commenced two weeks later, this was led at local level by the Local Authority,

having observed and learned from colleagues in neighbouring Merthyr Tydfil. There was excellent

leadership from both Local Authorities involved from the Leaders and Chief Executives to senior

officers and officers on the ground. In both areas, the pilot benefitted greatly from the dedication and

hard work of all teams pulling together to deliver a logistically challenging pilot in such a tight

timescale.

A hub and spoke method of delivery was developed with central testing stations in larger population

areas, supported by mobile stations serving smaller communities.

A pilot was also undertaken in secondary schools, a special school and a pupil referral unit in the areas

to increase access and uptake among 11 – 16 year old children and young people. Those in further

education were proactively linked into community testing facilities. Home testing was offered to all

those who were on shielding lists, with PCR test kits sent to homes.

Merthyr Tydfil has a population of just over 60,000 people and the pilot was agreed to run for a three

week period, commencing 21st November 2020. In the lower Cynon Valley area, with a population of

about 26,000 people, the pilot was agreed for a two week period, commencing 5th December 2020.

The pilots commenced shortly after the Welsh Governments Firebreak which ended on 8th November

2020, which had resulted in a reduction of incidence and positivity.

A self-isolation helpline was established to provide information and advice along with support to

follow self-isolation guidance for those testing positive. The Protect work stream linked together the

Local Authorities and Third Sector to provide the support available.

Analysis of uptake and outcomes

Community response to opportunity to participate in LFD testing was very high with uptake at 49% of

the target population in Merthyr Tydfil and 56% in the lower Cynon Valley. This compares very

favourably with the uptake in Liverpool and Scotland pilots of between 25-33%, which were

undertaken at similar times. There was lower uptake in males, younger people (11-29 years) and those

living in the most deprived quintiles of the population. The vast majority of those attending were

asymptomatic, at 99.6%.

The home tests available to those shielding was the PCR test, which was different to the LFD test

available in community settings. The uptake of the home tests was 36% in Merthyr Tydfil and higher

at 45% in the lower Cynon Valley, the telephone calls were made to those eligible to explain and

encourage uptake.. This is much higher that the Liverpool pilot where completion was 8.3%.

7 | P a g e

The positivity rate for those having the LFD test was 2.3% in Merthyr Tydfil and 2.6% in the lower

Cynon Valley with higher positivity rates in males (2.6% Merthyr Tydfil, 2.9% lower Cynon Valley),

younger people (20-29 years 3.2% Merthyr Tydfil, 4.2% lower Cynon Valley), those living in the most

deprived areas (3.1% in Merthyr Tydfil, 2.7% lower Cynon Valley) and in occupational groups where

close contact was more likely, including transport (5.2% Merthyr Tydfil) manufacturing and

construction (5.6% lower Cynon Valley), hospitality, health and social care, retail, and arts and

entertainment. In addition there was a high rate of positivity in those that did not disclose an

occupation (3.2% in Merthyr Tydfil, 5.5% in lower Cynon Valley).

The lower uptake in the groups that had higher positivity rates would indicate an “Inverse Testing

Law”. This lower uptake in these groups could reflect the bigger impact of potential self-isolation on

their financial position, underlining the inequalities in risk and outcomes experienced by these groups.

As a result of the whole area testing pilot in Merthyr Tydfil alone, it is estimated that 353 cases (both

asymptomatic and symptomatic), 24 hospitalisations, 5 ICU admissions and 14 deaths, that would

have otherwise occurred, were prevented. When taking into account multiple generations of infection

that would have occurred in the community, over a tenth of cases that would have occurred over a 6

week period were prevented. This forecast translates into a predicted of 6-12% reduction in burden

on the healthcare system. These forecasts are based on a probable, but conservative scenario.

Economic analysis

The cost of the pilot and tests varied with population size in each area. This was due to the fact that

although planning, infrastructure and operational costs in both areas were similar, the target

populations and tests undertaken were different. The average cost of community testing per test was

£20, school testing was £21 and home testing £38.

To compare costs and outcomes at a Local Authority level, the cost of the testing pilot in Merthyr

Tydfil, £515,618 was used to undertake a cost effectiveness analysis. The quality-adjusted life years

(QALYs), a measure of disease burden, including the quality and quantity of life lived was calculated.

The pilot was found to be highly likely to be cost effective, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio

of £2,292 per QALY gained. Net monetary benefit for the intervention, which is cost savings plus the

value of QALYs gained was £5.8million.

Case-control study

A case control study was undertaken by Public Health Wales at the same time as the pilot, and

provided useful intelligence on factors affecting transmission in this population. The transmission

within the household was the most important source of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Working in the

hospitality sector, and visiting the pub were significant risks but at the time of this study were relatively

infrequent exposures. Smoking or vaping had a small but significant effect. Working in education,

living with someone working in education, having caring responsibilities and visiting a supermarket,

restaurant, gym or leisure centre did not appear to increase risk of infection.

8 | P a g e

Waste water testing

Partners had been keen to support the use of waste water sampling to inform community testing

undertaken during the pilot. The results of the waste water sampling were not available at the time

of the pilot to inform the location of sampling. However, the results did show a potential to provide

information about the relative burden of COVID-19 infection and may benefit from further research.

Compared with that of larger towns and cities (>100,000), data were found to be highly variable in

wastewater networks serving relatively small populations (<10,000), producing spikes in the daily data

and making results more difficult to interpret. The results confirmed that waste water testing has

potential to provide information about the prevalence of COVID-19 to inform the selection of

Asymptomatic Test Sites. Lead times of several days are necessary to identify and assess suitable

sampling sites, regular sampling, processing and analysis. In addition, reporting procedures need to

be more streamlined and nearer real time for wastewater data to help inform testing strategies.

Communication and engagement

The locally led communication and engagement strategy achieved the required outcomes of getting

a high level of the population tested. Throughout the testing programme, a close watch was kept via

social media channels on what the public were saying and their experience of the testing centres. As

a result of this, there was the continual ability to adapt the communication strategy to reflect public

sentiments and respond to queries and concerns.

The aims and objectives of the Whole Area Testing pilot were broadly met and this evaluation report,

with its appendices, provides a comprehensive assessment of the pilot and a potential blueprint for

further roll out.

9 | P a g e

3. INTRODUCTION

3.1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the planning, implementation and outcomes achieved in

the Whole Area Testing pilot against the aim and objectives of the programme and in the context of

the changes in incidence of the pandemic. This will inform future potential expansion of this approach

to testing as part of our whole Test Trace Protect system, provide learning from experience to other

areas both in Wales and beyond who may be considering implementing a similar approach and also

contribute to the development of national policy in this area as required.

3.2. PILOT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough was identified during the week commencing 3rd November 2020 as an

area that community leaders wanted to explore the potential for mass testing, due to its high

prevalence of COVID-19.

‘Mass testing’, or ‘population-level case detection’ (PCD), refers to regular and/or large-scale testing of whole populations defined by area or sector. Rather than testing self-reported, symptomatic individuals, mass testing involves pro-active asymptomatic testing of a defined group; either through universal provision of accessible testing to that group or as a requirement before entering a particular setting1. The Cwm Taf Morgannwg (CTM) Test Trace Protect Service (TTP) had agreed to run a local pilot in its region in two areas – across the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil and in the lower Cynon Valley area of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough.

Merthyr Tydfil has a population of just over 60,000 people and the pilot was agreed to run for a three

week period, commencing 21st November. It was also agreed by community leaders to pilot mass

testing in the lower Cynon Valley area, population of circa 26,000 people, for a two week period,

commencing 5th December 2020.

3.3. DEMOGRAPHY OF PILOT AREAS

A breakdown of the population by age group, gender and ethnicity are set out in Table 1 and Table 2 below2: Table 1: Lower Cynon Valley

Age Aged 0-15 Aged

16-64 Aged 65 and over

All ages 0-4 5-15 65-74 75-84 85+

Population 1,432 3,326 15,289 2,565 1,630 549 24,791

Gender Male Female All persons

Population 12,082 12,709 24,791 Source: StatsWales, Mid-year population estimates, 2019

1 Multidisciplinary Task and Finish Group on Mass Testing Consensus Statement for SAGE, Date: 31 August 2020 2 Ethnicity data is not available at sub Local Authority level for the lower Cynon Valley

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/914931/s0712-tfms-consensus-statement-sage.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/914931/s0712-tfms-consensus-statement-sage.pdf

10 | P a g e

Table 2: Merthyr Tydfil

Age Aged 0-15 Aged 16- 64 Aged 65 and over All ages

0-4 5-15 65-74 75-84 85+

Population 3,658 7,898 37,384 6,399

3,729 1,258 60,326

Gender Male Female All persons

Population 29,596 30,730 60,326 Source: StatsWales, Mid-year population estimates, 2019

Number of people estimated

Number of people from a non-white

background

Number of people from a white background

Percentage of people from a non-white

background

59,800 1,400 58,400 2.3 Source: StatsWales, Ethnicity by area and ethnic group, 2019

The age distribution in the two Local Authorities can be seen below in Figure 1, with some differences

across the ages and gender3. When considering the lower Cynon Valley, it is important to note that

this will account for a very small proportion of the Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough.

Figure 1: Percentage of population by age and sex, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf

Percentage of population by age and sex, Merthyr Tydfil Percentage of population by age and sex, Rhondda Cynon Taf

3.3.1. DEPRIVATION IN PILOT AREAS The Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (Image 1) shows that lower Cynon Valley and Merthyr Tydfil have some of the most deprived areas in Wales. In addition, smoking rates are high in both areas (e.g. 22.7% in Merthyr Tydfil) in comparison to the health board average (18.6%) and the Welsh average (17.4%); high levels of overweight and obesity (e.g. Cwm Taf Morgannwg, 63.6% and Wales 59.9%)4;

3 Draft Merthyr Cynon Profile, Local Public Health Analytical Team, CTM UHB 2020 4 National Survey for Wales, 2018/2019 and 2019/20 combined data

11 | P a g e

higher prevalence of long term conditions than the health board average e.g. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and hypertension3. Image 1: Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) 2019, Cwm Taf Morgannwg UHB

3.3.2. BLACK ASIAN AND MINORITY ETHNIC (BAME) POPULATIONS Anyone who works in or is resident in the pilot areas was eligible for testing. The BAME population of

Merthyr Tydfil is 2.3% (n= 1,500)5 and Rhondda Cynon Taf 2.8% (n= 6,700). As an indication of BAME

representation in a local keyworker population group, of the 12,018 CTM UHB staff who have recorded

an ethnic background, 794 (6.6%) have recorded a BAME ethnic background6, as shown in Figure 2

(below).

5 Data on this item is based on 10 to 25 responses to the survey and categorised as being of low quality. Only estimates of 40 or more responses are considered robust and data items between 25 to 40 responses are categorised as being of limited quality. 6 Pearce A Sept 2020 Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board BAME Staff Profile. Workforce and Organisation Development

12 | P a g e

Figure 2: Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board BAME Staff Profile, March 2020.

3.4. EPIDEMIOLOGY OF COVID-19 IN THE PILOT AREAS The 7 day rolling cumulative cases between July 2020 and 24th January 2021 show a steep rise in cases from early October 2020. This, along with Merthyr Tydfil having the highest rate in the UK with Rhondda Cynon Taf (which includes the lower Cynon Valley) having the 8th highest, was the basis for the decision to introduce Whole Area Testing pilot on the 21st November 2020 – see Figures 3, 4 and 5 below. It can be seen that there was an early September 2020 spike of cases in Abercynon, some of which was associated with high profile local events and travel e.g. Doncaster Races bus trip. Figure 3: Statistical Process Control (SPC) 7 day rolling chart for positive cases in Merthyr Tydfil (99% CI)

13 | P a g e

Figure 4: SPC 7 day rolling cumulative chart for positive cases in Abercynon (99%CI)

Figure 5: SPC 7 day rolling cumulative chart for positive cases in Mountain Ash (99%CI)

Figure 6 (below) shows that in November 2020, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf were the Welsh Local Authorities with the highest rates of COVID-19 in the UK, along with neighbouring Blaenau Gwent.

14 | P a g e

Figure 6: Top 20 7-day rolling rates by Local Authority (as of 1st November 2020)

3.4.1. POSITIVITY RATES AND LOCKDOWNS Figure 7 shows the COVID-19 positivity rates for different age groups identified from 13th September to 22nd October 2020, highlighting higher than the 5% threshold among over 20+ year olds in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf and further justifying population case finding for the whole area7. Figure 7: Age Specific Positivity Rates by Local Authority

The Wales National Fire Break was effective from the 26th October to the 9th November 2020 and a National Lock down came into effect on the 20th December 2020.

7 COVID-19 age specific analysis by LA, Surveillance Team, TTP, Local Public Health Analytical Team, CTM UHB 2020

15 | P a g e

3.5. TESTING STRATEGY The aims of the pilot were agreed as follows:

1. To test whether or not large-scale testing can yield a significant and sustained reduction in

community transmission.



measures.





7. To assess the impact of testing on behaviour of participant.8







8 Added post implementation and not stated in the SOP and CONOP

16 | P a g e

3.6. HYPOTHESIS TO TEST THROUGH ASSESSMENT OF MASS TESTING

The offering of mass testing, in line with the aims and objectives has a number of potential positive

outcomes but also potential for negative consequences. This was identified by colleagues in the

Liverpool mass testing pilot, which commenced shortly before the Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon

Valley pilot, as seen in Figure 8 (below).

Having regard to this, and to enable some comparisons to be made, this evaluation sought to be

comprehensive about the outcomes and consequences. However, it should be noted that aim 7, to

assess the impact of testing on behaviour of participant, was not included in the planning and methods

for this evaluation. As a result, impact in respect of risk-taking behaviour and population mobility are

not elucidated in this report.

Figure 8. Flowchart of potential positive and negative outputs of mass community testing for

COVID-199

9 Draft Liverpool Mass Testing- JBC Analysis (8th December 2020).

17 | P a g e

4. GOVERNANCE, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

4.1. GOVERNANCE

This section sets out how the pilot was set up and governed.

Locally Led: Cwm Taf Morgannwg Test Trace Protect – Whole Area Testing Pilot Working Group

With the agreement and support of Welsh Government, the Whole Area Testing pilot was set up and

led by the Cwm Taf Morgannwg (CTM) Test Trace Protect (TTP) Service, which reports into the group

of Local Authority and Health Board Leaders/Chair and Chief Executives in CTM.

The Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for the pilot was the CTM Director of Public Health/Chair of the

CTM TTP Service. The aim of the TTP programme was to put in place appropriate systems and

capacities to ensure that, following the easing of lockdown measures in the first phase, we did not see

a rapid increase in illness and deaths in our communities due to COVID-19 infection. The programme

includes surveillance, testing, contact tracing, protection of the vulnerable, risk communication and

engagement and vaccination work streams.

The Whole Area Testing pilot was set up under a specific working group, reporting to the TTP

programme and which operated on a ‘task and finish’ basis. This was usually chaired by the SRO with

the support of a senior planner and Deputy Chief Executive, Merthyr Tydfil who also chaired when

required.

The working group had clear aims and objectives (as can be seen elsewhere in the document) and

members included representation from the two Local Authorities involved, the University Health

Board, Welsh Government, Welsh Ambulance Service, Police, Local Resilience Forum, Military and the

Third Sector.

The group met daily, including weekends, during the planning, implementation and early delivery

period of the pilot project due to the intensity of the work required and tight timescale.

Working in Partnership: Welsh Government

The Welsh Government (WG) established an internal group10 to provide support and consider end-to-

end system implications. This included representatives from testing policy, TTP Chief Operating Office,

digital, communications, resilience and contract tracing at national level. Public Health Wales (PHW)

and the NHS Wales Informatics Service (NWIS) provided support and advice to developing testing

protocols and understanding digital requirements.

10 Welsh Government Internal Planning Group (see appendices)

18 | P a g e

The Welsh Government’s Test, Trace, Protect (TTP) strategy is designed to enhance health surveillance

in the community, undertake effective and extensive contact tracing, and support people to self-

isolate where required to do so. Local Health Boards and Local Authorities work in collaboration to

deliver regionally co-ordinated local contact tracing teams. This sits alongside their existing roles to

provide testing facilities and environmental and public health responses to local outbreaks and

clusters or preventative action in areas regarded as high risk. This is integrated with wider partners

including Public Health Wales, Welsh Ambulance Service Trust, and the Military and Third Sector11.

Working in Partnership: Military

Working with the Military, both in England and Wales at Welsh Government and Department of Health

and Social Care (DHSC) level was key during the initial roll-out of the project. Planning and

implementation resources were provided by the Military, following the successful application of two

‘Military Aid to the Civil Authorities’ requests (MACAs) submitted by the Welsh Government.

Working in Partnership: Department of Health and Social Care

As the pilot took place in the context of support from the Department of Health and Social Care in

England, both in terms of the provision of equipment and learning from the Liverpool pilot, daily

weekday meetings also took place between representatives of the CTM TTP Whole Area Testing pilot

Working Group, Welsh Government, the Military and the Department of Health and Social Care to

check on progress and resolve issues.

Concerns identified/lessons learned:

The pilot lessons learned log included the need for the following in respect of programme governance:

Clear, representative working with clear reporting arrangements.

Early statement of purpose, aims, objectives and scope.

Clear accountability and decision-making arrangements.

A Senior Responsible Officer.

Clear policy lead at Welsh Government level as required.

What went well?

The following provides observations from the Evaluation Group on what was reported to have gone

well in the pilot from a governance perspective:

The governance arrangement was established clearly from the outset and appeared to work well

during the pilot period.

Clear reporting arrangements were in place and worked well, including daily meetings for the most

part.

11 https://gov.wales/test-trace-protect-html

https://gov.wales/test-trace-protect-html

19 | P a g e

The Military planning resource was very useful and well received, bolstering available resources

during the Merthyr Tydfil phase.

What could be improved?

Nothing specific was identified in this section.

Conclusions:

The governance and reporting arrangements were felt to work well during the pilot.

Recommendations:

1. In establishing Whole Area Testing, it is recommended that a Senior Responsible Officer is

appointed to lead and that senior leaders are identified in each partner organisation, including

Welsh Government, to form a Steering Group. These leaders should be able to make decisions

and allocate resources on behalf of their respective organisations. In addition, specialist

communication staff should be in place to support.

2. Regular meetings, daily during critical periods, should be maintained to ensure rapid decision

making and good communication.

3. Time should be given to properly define the aims and objectives and plan all aspects of delivery.

4.2. PLANNING

A brief overview of purpose:

When establishing the pilot, time was very tight to plan and deliver all the required arrangements.

Agreement to run the pilot was reached with local Chief Executives and Leaders in the 1st week of

November 2020; the working group was brought together on the 5th November, and a planned start

date of 21st November was set for the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough element of the pilot. A

subsequent start date for the lower Cynon Valley element was agreed to start on the 5th December.

Methods used:

Swift planning and dedicated planning resource to support the delivery of the pilot was key. An early

request, made through the Welsh Government, was submitted for three Military planners to assist in

the pilot at a local area level in Merthyr Tydfil, at the commencement of the pilot. Resources from the

wider TTP programme were added, including support from the CTM TTP senior planner and

programme manager.

Each Local Authority set up an Internal Planning Group led by a Chief Officer to co-ordinate the local

implementation plans and logistics and to co-ordinate staff deployment for the duration of each

phase. Each Group comprised a range of Senior Managers with expertise from across Operational

Departments of the Local Authority that had a key role in the delivery of the project including Estates,

Procurement, Human Resources, Highways, Finance and Events Officers. Each Planning Group

reported to a Senior Leadership Team within each Local Authority to ensure oversight of resource

commitments and progress against local timescale commitments, in addition to ensuring effective

elected member engagement in the lead up to and during the delivery of the projects.

The senior planner role assisted with the early development of the Concept of Operations, which set

out the agreed aim, objectives and scope of the pilot; drafting the Standard Operating Procedure,

20 | P a g e

building on a draft, emergent template from the DHSC12; maintaining a lessons learned log13 and

pulling together an interim findings report14 from work carried out by the working group.

In planning the pilot, there were a number of critical elements that assisted the set-up. These included

the development of the following, although it must be noted that most of these documents were

iterative and in development during the course of the pilot due to the very nature of the pilot and this

being untested territory in Wales:

The Concept of Operations15 – setting out the agreed purpose, aim and objectives of the pilot.

A draft template ‘clinical standard operating procedure (SOP) for mass testing for COVID-19 using lateral flow technology’ document, provided by the Department of Health and Social Care as part of the UK mass testing programme4.

The development of a Whole Area Testing Pilot over-arching Standard Operating Procedure16 which included:

o A process flow diagram outlining the ‘end to end’ process for community testing17.

o The Merthyr Tydfil18 and lower Cynon Valley19 Communications and Engagement plans.

o Site Generic Risk Assessment20.

o PCR Test Data Privacy Notice21.

o Contact Tracing Data Privacy Notice22.

o Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Data Privacy Poster23.

The Military planning aide memoir24 which provided a useful ‘handrail’ to operate the

asymptomatic test sites. This included guidance on site selection, logistic requirements and

working practises.

Maintenance of a ‘Lessons Learned Log’25 26.

The Whole Area Testing Pilot Working Group Interim Findings Report6.

12 The template clinical standard operating procedure (SOP) for mass testing for COVID-19 using lateral flow technology provided by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) under the UK mass testing programme (latest version from WG) (see appendices) 13 LFD Lessons Learned Capture Form (see appendices) 14 Whole Area Testing Pilot Working Group: Interim Findings 14 Jan 2020 (see appendices) 15 MTCBC Whole Borough Testing Planning CONOPS (see appendices) 16 Whole Area Testing MTCB LC – SOP FINAL (see appendices) 17 Process flow diagram outlining the ‘end to end’ process (see appendices) 18 MTCB Communication and Engagement Plan (see appendices) 19 LC Communication and Engagement Plan (see appendices) 20 Site Generic Risk Assessment (see appendices) 21 PCR Test Joint Testing Privacy Notice (see appendices) 22 Contact Tracing Privacy Notice (see appendices) 23 Privacy Notice Mass Testing MTCBC (see appendices) 24 Whole Town Testing (WTT) Planning Aide Memoir (see appendices) 25 WAMT MT- LC-Pilot – Lessons Learned Capture Log draft V3 (see appendices) 26 Lessons Learned Charts and Samples (see appendices)

21 | P a g e


The following sets out some of the planning lessons learned during the pilot, from the lessons

learned log:

Needed daily planning rhythm of working group meetings due to tight timescales.

Useful to have daily rhythm of meetings with DHSC due to tight timescales and innovative nature of the pilot.

Welsh Government handled the successful MACA process and application for Military planning support; this was a positive, swift process.

Need clarity upfront on pilot scope, aims, objectives and timescale.

Need clarity and agreement on target population(s).

The development of modelling estimates upfront supported the planning arrangements. For example estimates helped inform contact tracing and ‘Protect’ work stream planning and also allow comparison to actuals in due course.

There was a huge benefit in learning from elsewhere to inform the pilot planning and delivery - e.g. it was useful having the template SOP and lessons learned template shared from DHSC, as well as other supporting documentation from the Liverpool pilot.

Process mapping the 'end to end' process was carried out early on and was useful to inform the more detailed planning required. This required iterating as lessons were learned and to accommodate any required changes.

The right siting of locations was important to facilitate population access to testing. This was also reviewed/informed by emerging usage data (geography, Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation and age group etc.) to help inform further site based decisions.

Note particularly popular times of the day for accessing testing centres and use this information to help refine workforce and site planning e.g. more people likely to access testing sites after shopping or after school.

Opened one main centre first, then, once staff comfortable with testing process, rolled out to further sites.

Outreach sites: these proved an excellent way of reaching deprived areas, where many do not have the ability to travel outside of their local communities.

What went well?

In terms of planning the pilot, there were several conditions fundamental to successful Whole Area

Testing which were gleaned from lessons learned elsewhere, particularly from the pilot being held in

Liverpool, and which were built into the planning, including:

Extensive integration with Local Authorities to co-design testing in each area, ensuring a focus on

an end-to-end whole system.

Comprehensive communications and engagement plans.

Good workforce planning to ensure sufficient workforce of the correct balance and qualification.

Testing capabilities in the right place, on time and in sufficient number.

Policies in place to facilitate:

- Testing to release contacts from self-isolation

- Compensation for lost revenue

22 | P a g e

Lessons learned logs were maintained throughout the life of the pilot project, which helped inform

delivery along the way and the evaluation.

An evaluation framework established, to include:

- Behavioural insights

- Operational experience

- Success of partnerships

- Assessment of impact and effectiveness


The pilot had to be set up, planned and delivered in a short-timescale. In other projects, a slightly

longer timescale may be required to establish such a LFD testing service, particularly if there is no

additional planning resource to enable the accelerated implementation that took place in this pilot.

Conclusions:

On balance, despite tight timescales the planning of the project is thought to have gone well,

particularly with the boost from the Military and TTP planning resource brought in at relatively short

notice to support the pilot.

Recommendations:

1. Securing a planning resource and adopting a project management approach to such a project

(including lessons learned) is key.

2. Ensure that the planning focus is on the development of an end-to end-pathway, from the

point of accessing the testing, all the way through to results received, contact tracing and self-

isolation support where required.

3. A good communications and engagement plan underpinning this work is critical to ensure

good community awareness and attendance.

4. Ensure a focus on lessons learned and project evaluation at the beginning of the project. This

will help the implementation of the project along the way and also secure the right resource

and agreed approach as to how the project results will be captured, evaluated and shared.

5. Depending on the context and type of LFD testing service being established, some of the

lessons learned above may provide useful recommendations for consideration in setting up

a similar service elsewhere.

4.3. IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation of the pilot was very much locally led and driven. There was excellent leadership

from both Local Authorities involved, from the Leaders and Chief Executives to senior officers and

officers on the ground. Particular mention should be made in both areas to the dedication and hard

work of all teams pulling together to deliver a challenging pilot in terms of logistics etc. in such a tight

timescale. For many staff this was in addition to their ‘day jobs’ and involved working seven days a

week for the planning and implementation periods.

In Merthyr Tydfil area, implementation was very much led by the Local Authority in partnership with

the Military. A second MACA enabled the deployment of an additional 155 Military personnel. The

Military personnel were split into two cohorts. Cohort one (96 Military personnel) were employed as

23 | P a g e

testers, cohort two (59 Military personnel) were employed in supporting roles such as command and

control, logistics, and force health protection27. This workforce deployed to support the delivery phase

allowing the Local Authority time and space to recruit a civilian workforce and open the additional

testing sites. Just to reinforce, the Local Authority staff established the first main testing centre at

Merthyr Tydfil Leisure Centre (also known as Rhydycar), on time and with a professional set-up. The

Military deployment involved augmenting the personnel from Military units from across the UK; many

had come straight out of basic training. Once arrived in Wales, they had to be fully briefed on the task

and orientated to the environment they would be working in. This process will always take a few days

however, once on task Military personnel added the capability to facilitate the further roll-out of the

pilot to other centres across the borough.

In the lower Cynon Valley, where the pilot commenced two weeks later, this was led at local level by

the Local Authority, who also sourced all of the staff at a local level to run their testing centres.

Rhondda Cynon Taf Local Authority set up a project team, led by a senior officer, who took this work

forward from local planning, through to implementation and collation of local lessons learned, which

were added to the pilot lessons learned log.


In terms of lessons learned during the implementation of the pilot, Figure 9 shows the proportion of

lessons learned for each area (e.g. site set up):

Figure 9: Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley - lessons learned

27 The principles of force health protection are - manage the workforce; ensure correct spacing between personnel; stagger shifts and mealtimes; touch-free handles and interfaces.

24 | P a g e

This provides a sense of where some of the major challenges are, as can be seen detailed elsewhere

in this evaluation report under the relevant sections. The lessons learned log also provides further

details, which are not repeated here.

What went well?

The second MACA secured the deployment of 155 Military service personnel, broken down as

previously described, to support the Local Authority deliver the project in the Merthyr Tydfil area. The

Local Authority HR team developed a plan to integrate the Military personnel, which would be

followed by their gradual transition from Military supported operation to an operation fully staffed by

a civilian workforce by 7th December 2020.

It should be recognised here that Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council had established the main

testing facility in Merthyr Tydfil Leisure Centre and had started testing prior to the 155 service

personnel arriving. The arrival of the additional Military personnel were a force multiplier enabling

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council to open the additional smaller sites, whilst training the follow

on workforce.

Due to the constraints contained within the MACA, the Military personnel were not remitted for

deployment to the lower Cynon Valley testing locations. Rhondda Cynon Taf did an excellent job

developing their own rollout based on the learning and observation from the Merthyr Tydfil pilot. The

lower Cynon Valley pilot should be seen as a good practice model without Military assistance for future

rollout of community testing across Wales.

In both areas, it was clear that there was the development of excellent team cohesion. The teams

that have worked together, moving from site to site ‘gelled’, and as one team leader was reported to

have noted, ‘they have become more than a team, they feel like a family’. A senior Military colleague

commented ‘it is pleasing to see strong effective leadership within a civilian workforce that is willing

to empower their staff, and equally important to see staff empowered and embracing the

opportunities. This is also a recognition that they are playing their part in a pivotal moment in

history. One person told me they studied mass testing during their university studies, and now they

were part of one and extremely proud to be’.

Many team members were noted to have embraced their new roles and learned new skills, which will

benefit them for future employment opportunities. They have also become very proficient at the

testing process and protocols.


Similar to planning, the pilot was able to be up and running in a very short timescale, with the benefit

of additional resources in Merthyr Tydfil in the form of additional Military personnel supporting

implementation ‘on the ground’. Where such resource is not immediately available, a slightly

lengthier timescale to implement may be required whilst staff are identified and redeployed and/or

recruited as necessary. Good workforce planning is essential in this respect together with pragmatic

and comprehensive training plans to enable staff to ‘hit the ground running’ as swiftly as possible,

with good support.

25 | P a g e

Conclusions:

Implementation of the pilot was the most challenging and labour intensive part of the whole process

as might be expected. Good leadership, excellent team work and positive partnering with the

Military made this a successfully implemented pilot, set against the backdrop of tight timescales and

being new to Wales in nature.

Recommendations:

1. It is recommended that in terms of the implementation of similar projects, the Lessons

Learned Log is considered, as this provides a range of learning and experience across a wide

range of areas experienced during the pilot.

26 | P a g e

5. LOGISTICS

This section describes the process of establishing testing sites within the pilot areas, and the

associated wrap around community support. It is acknowledged that workforce (including training) is

a key part of logistics, and this is focussed on within section 5 of this report.

5.1. COMMUNITY BASED TESTING


A key objective of the Whole Area Testing was to pilot an end to end process at venues where PCR

testing was also available (namely at Merthyr Tydfil Leisure Centre, Aberfan Leisure Centre and

Mountain Ash Bowls Centre). The aim was to secure rapid follow up PCR test for those with a positive

LFD test, followed by engagement with Contact Tracing Service staff on site, and referral to support

organisations as required to enable self-isolation for cases.

Those eligible to access to the Whole Area Testing pilot included those:

Who live, work or study in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough or the lower Cynon Valley area of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough.

Who are 11 years of age, or over.

Are asymptomatic.

Who consent to participation in the pilot.

Who consent to sharing their data with the Welsh Test Trace Protect service

Children aged 11-17 for whom appropriate consent is obtained and where testing was done at a community venue, with the child accompanied by a consenting parent/guardian. 11-17 year olds will self-swab with adult supervision.

Methods used:

The Local Authorities already had structures in place to plan for the establishment of testing sites, to

include:

A Command and control node and communications network. A very experienced and

proven team that had already dealt with heavy snowfall, flooding and a recent

COVID-19 shielding plan. In Merthyr Tydfil, they were also very supportive of the Armed

Forces, embracing the ideas generated by the Military planning team.

Highways department - dealing with route signage, road closures, traffic

calming measures etc.

Waste collection - including clinical waste protocols in place for Care Homes.

Leisure Centres - these sites came with a potential workforce, with similar skills

required such as receptionists, cleaners, public focussed staff, and known by the local

population.

Estates legal team - experienced in writing business interruption contracts.

Human Resource (HR) and Training team - to hire suitable staff, and train trainers to deliver

and assure any training. The HR team would also manage the daily workforce

requirements, including the Mobile Testing Unit once deployed.

27 | P a g e

Construction/Maintenance Team - this team would build and maintain the testing sites.

Distribution hub and supply chain with storage for the PPE and Test Kits, including a reverse

supply chain to manage an effective stock control process.

Utilisation of the Local Authority polling station plan, which included a quality & assurance

team that inspected and assured all sites prior to opening.

Across both pilot areas (Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley), the proposals were based on a

Hub and Spoke Model with each Local Authority area having a main testing venue for the duration of

the programme, with additional community (spoke) venues deployed in phases.. A summary of where

those sites were and their estimated testing capacity figures is included in the Interim Findings

Report6.

In Merthyr Tydfil, the planning product was delivered in 3 phases. 

The Local Authority led and managed all testing sites.

A detailed synchronisation matrix gave clarity to the plan.

The Military Testing Team deployed in support and extracted as early as possible once the

follow on trained civilian workforce was in place.

In the lower Cynon Valley, only phases 1 and 2 above were relevant.

To determine throughput at each testing site, modelling estimates (informed by the Liverpool pilot)

were calculated for the numbers of daily tests and subsequent stages of the end-to-end process. As

the roll-out of testing centres progressed, the working group used intelligence coming from those

tested to inform their agreed subsequent location of sites, in particular to reach the more

deprived areas, where data was indicating that uptake was lower, and also to inform the pilot

communications campaign where the data was also indicating that younger people, especially

younger adult males, were proving more difficult to reach.

The key stages of the end to end process are summarised below:

Stage 1 – Lateral Flow Device testing

Stage 2 – PCR testing

Stage 3 – Contact tracing

Stage 4 – Protect

The end to end process is illustrated in full detail within the diagram below (see Appendix 17 for a

more detailed view).

28 | P a g e

5.1.1. HOME TESTING ARRANGEMENTS Arrangements were made for those identified in the area as shielding previously during the first COVID-19 incidence ‘peak’ in April 2020, to receive a home test kit. Home test kits were mailed out from the DHSC to everyone on that shielding list. The Local Authorities provided their lists in a secured format to DHSC who mailed out one PCR test kit to each shielding person. Each person was advised to either use a priority mailbox to return the kits, or where they were not able to do so, to ring 119 to arrange a courier pick up. There were a reasonable number and distribution of Royal Mail priority mail boxes across the pilot areas. For those who are disabled, or unable to leave the house for any reason and were not on the vulnerable/shielding list, a home visit to deliver a PCR test was offered to the individual (not to the whole household), if requested. This was a self-administered PCR, processed via Public Health Wales Laboratories. In the lower Cynon Valley an initial phone call was made to those shielding in an effort to explain the process and secure greater uptake.

5.2. CONTACT TRACING

As LFD results did not flow into the Contact Tracing CRM, a bespoke online tracing form was created

for use in the pilot. This allowed cases to be traced using the same script as the national Contact

Tracing Service, with results flowing into a separate system for analysis and management of contacts.

On the first weekend of testing at Merthyr Tydfil Leisure Centre, cases that returned for a PCR test

were offered three tracing options, namely:

Option a) Complete an online form with a Contact Tracer on site.

Option b) Provide a contact number for a Contact Tracer to call them and Trace later that day.

Option c) Provide an email address for receipt of the online tracing form link and complete a self-trace as soon as possible.

All cases in the first weekend chose Option c, however none completed the online form.

On Monday the 26th November, the decision was made to only offer Option a, in order to increase the

positive engagement with the Contact Tracing element of the pilot. Contact Tracers were withdrawn

from Aberfan Leisure Centre on Wednesday 28th November as only one case had returned to site and

submitted for contact tracing. Contact Tracers remained on site at Merthyr Tydfil Leisure Centre and

Mountain Ash Bowls Centre for the duration of the pilots.

During the Pilot, 414 cases submitted for face to face contact tracing having returned to a testing

centre to undertake a PCR test. This total consists of:

243 cases in the Merthyr Tydfil phase

171 in the lower Cynon Valley phase.

For the 414 cases who completed a contact tracing interview on site, 1,063 contacts that needed to

self-isolate were identified. There comprised:

819 household contacts

29 | P a g e

244 other close contacts (e.g. workplace/ social contacts)

On receipt of the PCR test result,

21 people were found to be negative and they and their contacts were released from isolation.

All cases confirmed as positive by PCR were followed up again by the Contact Tracing Service

to validate the previous information obtained on site, to confirm to all contacts the need to

complete the self-isolation period and to re-visit any support required to enable cases and

contacts to complete their self-isolation period.

The significant majority of cases that were followed up on site at mass testing centres were traced

within 2 hours of their LFD result. Tracing undertaken following PCR only is not typically initiated until

24-48 hours after laboratory confirmation is received.

5.3. PROTECT

Ensuring high levels of adherence to the need to self-isolate in response to symptoms, a positive test

for COVID-19 or having been contact traced is fundamental to the success of the overall Test Trace

Protect programme. It is recognised that people will face different challenges in successfully self-

isolating, potentially on more than one occasion.

The strategic aim of the Protect work stream is to identify the support which may be required by some

people to enable them to successfully self-isolate and ensure this support is provided openly and

equitably across CTM.

A Tactical Group met weekly to exchange intelligence, guidance, information and update on supply of

and demand for community support for people to self-isolate following a positive test result or being

contact traced. Members of the group represented:

• Cwm Taf Morgannwg Regional Partnership Board (Work stream Lead and RPB Chair)

• Interlink (Community Voluntary Council (CVC) for Rhondda Cynon Taf)

• VAMT (CVC for Merthyr Tydfil)

• BAVO (CVC for Bridgend)

• Rhondda Cynon Taf CBC

• Bridgend CBC

Merthyr Tydfil CBC

• Head of CTM RPB Commissioning Unit

• Public Health Wales

• CTM Public Health Team

• Research, Innovation and Improvement Hub Team members

• CTM UHB

• CTM Public Service Board Support Team

A range of support was made available and has been provided to individuals who have faced

challenges during ‘lockdown’ and through periods of self-isolation. Local Authorities, in partnership

with the Third Sector and Volunteers, have helped people with shopping, collecting medicine,

loneliness and isolation, emergency food and support and a very wide range of other support needs.

30 | P a g e

During the Whole Area Testing pilot, the following activity took place:

Working with Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council colleagues, VAMT introduced a model of

support at the beginning of the pandemic. This model included brokering connections to Third

Sector partners and community organisations to support community members with e.g. shopping

services, prescription collections, food parcels and befriending. This model was still in place during

mass testing.

Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council carried out a discrete piece of work with Schools,

Services, and medically vulnerable residents in the area by contacting those previously on the

Shielded Patient list (SPL) and vulnerable residents in the lower Cynon Valley pilot area to support

the Whole Area/Community Testing effort.

Residents previously on the SPL in the lower Cynon Valley pilot area received a supportive

telephone call to alleviate any anxiety and to provide information in relation to the process of

receiving and returning Home Testing. This call also enabled the capture of a baseline of

information about their intention to take the test when received or not.

5.3.1. CWM TAF MORGANNWG (CTM) SELF ISOLATION HELPLINE

A new Self Isolation Helpline (SIH) launched in November 2020 was available for anyone testing

positive or those traced as a contact. A rapid collection of softer intelligence on COVID-19 beliefs and

attitudes in CTM had been undertaken, collating feedback from backward contact tracing activity and

anecdotes shared by members of the RCCE and Protect Tactical Group. This intelligence supplements

the epidemiology and cluster intelligence considered by the CTM Regional Incident Management

Team (RIMT).

The findings indicate that there was considerable confusion about self-isolation and the availability of

support particularly for contacts and many unanswered questions, all of which lead to non-compliance

with COVID-19 measures. This highlighted the need for ready access to reliable information,

communicated in person at the right time.

The helpline provides:

- A way back into the Contact Tracing team (CTT) service to answer the questions that

COVID-19 cases and contacts may have

- Another opportunity for people to be sign-posted to local support that will enable them to

follow the self-isolation advice received

SIH Operation Principles:

Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council host the Regional Contact Tracing Service on

behalf of the three Local Authorities (Rhondda Cynon Taf, Bridgend and Merthyr Tydfil). As an

extension to this, Rhondda Cynon Taf set up and hosted a 7 day a week Contact Tracing

Helpline available to residents across Cwm Taf Morgannwg.

31 | P a g e

A single contact number (Rhondda Cynon Taf Contact Centre 01443 425020) takes calls from

across CTM. This number cannot be included on the nationally agreed automated “texts” that

cases and contacts in CTM receive from the CT service. Therefore, a separate CTM text is sent

to cases and contacts containing the contact centre number for further advice/ information.

The Rhondda Cynon Taf Contact Centre number is included on letters sent to contacts who do

not respond to telephone calls.

The helpline signposts individuals identifying as needing support to a single point of contact

provided by the community co-ordinator in each locality who is available Monday to Friday.

The community co-ordinator assesses need and links individuals with local assets as

appropriate (directly delivered, commissioned services and Third Sector organisations).

Two-way signposting arrangements between the locality support and the regional contact

tracing helpline exist. The locality support providers are enabled to deliver consistent

messaging to people who already present to them for information assistance or advice armed

with key messages and FAQs.


The following summarises some of the main logistics lessons learned during the pilot. These are taken

primarily from the lessons learned log (which may be of assistance to others considering the adoption

of a similar approach) and from the experiences of the community support arrangements established

across the pilot areas.

Site set up

Site recces / plans / set-up should be undertaken with joint involvement from departments across the Council, including Events (and possibly Design for the signage), Corporate Estates, Cleansing and Leisure (especially Site Managers who will be overseeing the events at that particular site). This will allow for a greater sharing of information and perspectives, where an action log and timescales can be set, therefore minimising issues and the need for any future changes.

Site visits are essential to walk through the proposed process prior to the centre opening and helps with contingency planning, stress testing the system etc.

It is critical to have a plan of the site layout prior to set up showing both layout and intended flow of public through entrance and exit points. This will speed up signage and the placement of arrow markings and distancing advice.

Signage on site is vital - clear and relevant, together with well-informed stewards etc. who can assist with queue management, queries and keeping the public informed at all times.

Ensure key posters displayed as required to assist in informing the public whilst at the testing centre e.g. data privacy notice and how to register online while waiting if able to, with a smart phone.

Be prepared for members of the public turning up early, prior to opening times for tests, especially on day one.

Need to have the site manager and key holder information circulated prior to build to allow access to the sites as early as possible.

Better to have more space inside to queue people especially during inclement weather.

32 | P a g e

Mobile devices need to be logged in the day before to ensure sites are registered and there are no issues with connectivity and devices charged.

Cleaning and waste management

Check the testing venue before opening to establish if seating on site is suitable i.e. not fabric

covered and can be sanitised and wiped over.

Ensure that all booths, chairs, tables and set up materials are sanitised following final closure

of sites. This will mean sites can be dismantled immediately rather than wait for 72 hours.

Safe systems of cleaning documented – clearly understand what cleaning materials are

required to fulfil sanitising requirements on site, clinical waste systems adhered to.

Ensure the correct disinfectants are used, advice will be provided by LAs environmental health

teams. This is tied in with having an adequate cleaning regime including high touch points and

removal of contaminated waste.

Need to ensure clear and agreed waste management processes with clear and agreed waste

management policy including commissioning of sub-contractors where necessary.

Clinical

Testing process needs to be clear early in planning to inform logistics etc. The early decision

made the by working group to do confirmatory PCR for those LFD positive cases, preferably

on-site, assisted with logistical and workforce planning.

Need to ensure laboratory capacity can cope with demand - additional Public Health Wales

laboratory capacity required for confirmatory PCR test.

Ensure that any WAST staff on sites, (undertaking confirmatory PCR tests), are tested on site

each day and adhere to the same rules around social distancing etc. as Council mass testing

staff.

Choice of PPE new masks: elastic not comfortable.

Data capture

One source of data per site to avoid confusion / inconsistency with numbers – reports at

1400hrs and 1930hrs to key contacts – leading to reported numbers at 2000hrs daily.

Digital

IT: important to have prior knowledge of: details around the system and the application itself, Carrier (Vodaphone), Connectivity (4G), the on-boarding process - codes etc., the end to end process (burner mobiles etc.). This would have saved a lot of legwork on site/device/investigation suitability and meant it would have resulted in boosters etc. earlier in the process.

Network boosters were needed especially in outreach centres. Difficult at times to get a phone signal at some locations.

Each site needs a dedicated "burner" phones, (doesn’t need to be smartphone), to use for results for those who do not have a mobile number.

Tablets with cover rather than a phone for registration would have worked better.

Ensure manual back-up processes are in place where required and essential, if digital processes

fail for any reason.

Need to ensure have a plan for those with no phone or email address.

33 | P a g e

Expect issues with people not being sent their results due to phone networks etc.

Clarity from NHS app updates - updating with no knowledge.

Engagement and communications

Despite clear messaging on asymptomatic people only attending ATS, assume some

symptomatic people will unfortunately still do this. Ensure mechanisms in place for identifying

such people as soon as possible and re-direct them to an appropriate test site.

Information leaflet for those arriving at ATS site deemed too bulky so being redesigned. Bear in

mind individuals have to hold barcodes, registration card and leaflet.

Site operation

Highways - inspections to be carried out prior to opening to identify and rectify any trip hazards

– e.g. carriageway potholes, footway defects etc.

Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) – There were sufficient stocks of PEDs however the operating

applications changed regularly without prior notification. The agility of the workforce quickly

adapted to the ever changing situation, the drawback was small delays in the registration

process, which is a long enough process anyway, the outcome were queues building up, which

in turn turned off a proportion of people from getting tested.

LFDs – These need to be available during the training phase to help the workforce understand

the process. The workforce also need enough for their daily testing, which needs to be started

at least 1 hour before the site opens.

Bottlenecks - registration is a severe bottleneck, queue managers and registration assistants are

vital to managing flow into testing room. Staff here need good communication skills, ensuring

that once registration forms and barcodes are provided, public can self-register to speed up

process.

Have to ensure adequate breaks for staff, catering facilities should be considered where

possible.

Spare barcode utilised with result-to prevent the need of a second test if result not delivered.

Registration process was long winded. Staff registering people felt that the masks worn

hampered what they could hear and some older people were being asked 4 or five times to

repeat themselves. A section on the registration card that people could fill in names, mobile

number, post code etc. would help this process.

Inventory audit at the end of each day possibly, to ensure all equipment is accounted for.

Signage may become damaged, etc.

Transport

Consider during planning alternative support for positive cases travelling home on public

transport if they do not have PPE. Best practice/solution may have been identified elsewhere.

34 | P a g e

Protect

During the Whole Area Testing pilot period, calls to the Helpline increased by 29.5%. There was

a 56% increase in calls relating to self-isolation financial support.

What went well?

The co-operation between agencies was impressive: Welsh Government; Health Board; Local Authorities; South Wales Police; WAST; Test Trace Protect; Military and Third Sector organisations.

Each Local Authority led and managed the centres and identified staff to oversee logistics. For example, site managers maintained a daily stock level based initially on estimated throughput, and adapted to changing resource requirements.

A simple WhatsApp communications network was established to manage resources throughout

the day

Booths not provided from day 1 – Merthyr Tydfil Council Borough Council had alternative, adapting the use of polling booths for the testing booths was a measure forced onto the decision process due to the difficulty around securing the official booths provided by Deloitte. Not sufficient however for all sites.

Without the flexibility of thought and use of initiative the pilot may have failed before it started. This has been adopted as best practice across other Community Testing schemes.

Always have a contingency plan - significant contingency plans were needed at the beginning of the pilot as:

- Barcodes did not arrive from DHSC on time. These were delivered as part of the PPE pack, a clear weakness in the supply network. This became evident when the initial PPE delivery was delivered to the wrong location. The pilot could have commenced without PPE (LA had its own supply) but the barcodes were a critical part to the testing process. Barcodes had to be obtained from 2 x PCR testing sites in Ebbw Vale & Abercynon, although these were different barcodes they allowed the pilot to commence on time. The drawback was managing the change over to the correct barcodes when they arrived, as inevitably the wrong barcodes kept reappearing for a short period – this affected data collection.

- Military resource did not arrive from day 1 (except Military planners) to help the initial site.

- Trainers from DHSC did not arrive from day 1 to 'train the trainers'.

Despite the above alternative arrangements were found and the 1st centre opened as planned to the credit of the Local Authority.

Protect

The potential inability to meet the demand given the limited resources. However the early pandemic model implemented proved successful and during mass testing community partners reported a belief that individuals that had previously been brokered were continuing to be supported by them.

VAMT with Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and Community Partners including Registered Social Landlords’ had set up a Merthyr Tydfil COVID-19 Steering Group which continued to meet and information from the group was used to inform the mass testing process.

35 | P a g e

The ability of the Third Sector to respond flexibly to meet the needs of individuals testing positive for COVID-19, as well as those having to self-isolate as a direct result of being in contact with a positive case. The well-established and effective co-ordination and brokerage of support continued by Community Resilience Hubs and through Interlink’s Community Co-ordinator service.


Data ownership so that the LA can quickly react to potential COVID-19 hotspots.

Generating a dedicated testing team. This team would be specifically recruited to conduct LFD

testing, this would release any staff that have been redeployed to fulfil the requirement. This

would enable a longer term solution and minimise staff burn out, particularly if that member

of staff was also conducting the duties of their primary role.

The ratio of hubs to mobile stations should be carefully considered having regard to

population density, accessibility and topography of the relevant communities. The range of

one hub for 20,000 – 40,000 population depending on these factors is realistic.

Flow of LFD results into the National Contact Tracing CRM system would have enabled easier

case data management and contact follow up.

There were a number of digital issues encountered, as described in the concerns

identified/lessons learned section, above. Consideration of these for future planners, will

help improve smooth operation at testing centres

Conclusions:

A robust logistical plan is essential to a smooth operation, ensuring the following 5 principles are

considered:

1. Foresight – The ability to predict and take or manage risks, this becomes particularly important

when resource levels are reduced without a commensurate reduction in tempo.

2. Efficiency – achieving the maximum level of support for the least effort, in order to make best

use of finite resources and the supply network.

3. Simplicity – enables plans, systems and organisations to react well to the unforeseen, ensuring

the plan is easily understood.

4. Cooperation – helps share logistic responsibilities and resources allowing the workforce to

interact efficiently.

5. Agility – allows a team leader the ability to respond quickly to the unexpected, remain

effective under difficult conditions, allowing flexibility to overcome the unforeseen.

The plan was understood by everyone involved and was easy to communicate to the public, which

ensured a high take up. Key benefits were:

The simplicity of the plan to enable the roll out to other Local Authorities.

The inclusion of secondary schools in the pilot, which has helped to inform the roll out of

testing to schools.

Onsite contact tracers ensured cases received correct advice on self-isolation and allowed

household contact advice to be given. It also facilitated rapid follow up of cases associated

with complex settings such as workplaces.

36 | P a g e

Having a dedicated Protect resource in the Community Co-ordinator to help partners/ community

members to navigate the 3rd sector has been crucial at a time when an immediate/ emergency

response has been required. Subsequently the model of support is keeping people safe, well and

supported in a community setting rather than them having to access more costly statutory services.

Notwithstanding the current level of support available to deliver community led action and Third

Sector services, there is a significant risk to this provision in the long term due to short term project

funding of community resilience work and a strategic approach, with adequate investment, to bolster

community led preventative work to address the growing and worrying increase in poor mental health

as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.

Recommendations:

1. Provide home testing kits for those that test positive (7 day supply).

2. Consider at an early stage if Military support is required, and request for a Military Advisory

Team (MAT) initially, that can inform whether additional Military support is required either

for planning or delivery purposes.

3. Protect - The re-introduction of borough wide or regional resilience planning to strengthen

the connection between co-ordinated volunteering and the redeployment of staff across

sectors in an emergency situation would be welcomed.

37 | P a g e

6. SCHOOLS BASED TESTING – MERTHYR TYDFIL28 AND LOWER CYNON

VALLEY29


Testing was established in schools based settings – this included 6 secondary school settings, a special

school and a pupil referral unit in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough, and in one Secondary School in the

lower Cynon Valley area of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough.

There were different approaches to the pilot taken in each area. Merthyr Tydfil benefited from

support provided by the Military, both in terms of planning and implementation of the Whole Area

Testing pilot. The lower Cynon Valley team were fortunate to learn key lessons from the various

approached to testing delivered in the Merthyr Tydfil schools, and this enabled them to design and

deliver their own workable testing regime at the secondary school.

In reading this section of the report, it should be noted that the learning and approaches taken were

different in different areas and different schools. The style therefore, reflects these different

approaches and the learning identified.

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough was identified during the week commencing 3rd November 2020 as an

area that community leaders wanted to explore the potential for mass testing, due to the high

prevalence of COVID-19 in this area. Merthyr Tydfil has a population of just over 60,000 people and

the community-based pilot was agreed to run for a three-week period, commencing 21st November

2020. It was later agreed by community leaders to pilot community-based mass testing in the lower

Cynon Valley, with a population of circa 26,000 people, for a two week period, commencing 5th

December 2020. This area also had consistently high prevalence rates.

The time period to commence testing in schools were agreed as:

- Merthyr Tydfil County Borough – Monday 30th November 2020

- Lower Cynon Valley - 7th December 2020

Additional work was also undertaken separately, looking at the risk of transmission in schools in Cwm

Taf Morgannwg. The relevant findings are included in this report to provide context. The review of

school cases30 suggests that:

Approximately half of cases can be accounted for by community acquisition, mostly from a

household member index case.

Where cases are identified in a school setting, they are usually associated with smaller

social/friendship groupings both inside and outside school.

Remaining cases could not identify a clear source of transmission. There is no clear evidence

of wider in-school transmission, outside of these smaller social/friendship groups.

28 Afon Taf High School; Bishop Hedley RC High School; Cyfarthfa High School; Pen-y-Dre High School; Ty Dysgu Homfray; Greenfields Special School 29 Mountain Ash Comprehensive School 30 The Schools Review can now be found on the CTM main COVID-19 page (it’s right above the “Calling all

staff” box) https://cwmtafmorgannwg.wales/latest-information-on-novel-coronavirus-covid-19/ You can also

access the Reviews directly with these links (if you needed them): (English Version) (Welsh Version)

https://cwmtafmorgannwg.wales/latest-information-on-novel-coronavirus-covid-19/

https://cwmtafmorgannwg.wales/Docs/COVID%20Information/Review%20of%20transmission%20of%20Covid%20in%20schools%20in%20CTM%20080121.pdf?boxtype=pdf&g=false&s=false&s2=false&r=wide

https://cwmtafmorgannwg.wales/Docs/COVID%20Information/Review%20of%20transmission%20of%20Covid%20in%20schools%20in%20CTM%20080121%20%28Welsh%29.pdf?boxtype=pdf&g=false&s=false&s2=false&r=wide

38 | P a g e

Case rates in schools reflect prevailing rates in the community. It was noted that cases

increased towards the end of the autumn term, in line with increases in community incidence.

Overall, cases as a proportion of all pupils and staff, and contacts per case, remained low,

indicating effective control measures were in place.

There is a high degree of confidence in compliance, in the main, with effective engagement of

the education sector including the Local Education Authorities, schools and pupils.

Methods used:

The mass testing was led under the auspices of the Cwm Taf Morgannwg (CTM) Test Trace Protect

(TTP) programme and locally delivered by the Local Authorities – Merthyr Tydfil County Borough

Council and Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council; Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health

Board; the Third Sector and other supporting partners.

Testing sites were established in both the community and schools, enabling anyone (aged 11 years or

older) living or working in the areas to have a LFD test. This section of the report focuses on schools-

based testing which was undertaken in the following settings.

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough:

Afon Taf High School – roll numbers 771

Bishop Hedley RC High School – roll numbers 583

Cyfarthfa High School – roll numbers 1,024

Pen-y-Dre High School – roll numbers 770

Ty Dysgu Homfray – roll numbers 20

Greenfield School – roll numbers 171

Lower Cynon Valley area of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough:

Mountain Ash Comprehensive School – roll numbers 1,061

Other pupils residing in the lower Cynon Valley area, but attending other schools (Welsh medium

school, Pupil Referral Unit, faith schools) were invited to attend the community testing centres.

Children with special educational needs were sent a home test kit or advised to attend the testing

centre if possible.

6.1. COMMUNICATION AND ENGAGEMENT

It was determined as essential at the outset to ensure the successful delivery of the pilot. Regular

meetings were held with Head teachers, Chairs of Governors and the relevant Director of Education.

Communication with parents/carers was extremely important, and included, for example, a

Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) on the Rhondda Cynon Taf website, and school messaging services

were used to disseminate information and send reminders. Within Merthyr Tydfil, the Learning

Department and schools communication with parents was vital so that they were able to make the

choice of having their child/ren tested within school.

By facilitating this within the schools, it was evident that schools would be able to have a closer focus

on the volume of pupils actually being tested. As a result of this, it would allow schools to manage the

wider school community in relation to attendance and well-being of staff and pupils. Letters to

parents/carers included an explanation of the testing process and consent forms.

39 | P a g e

A key message to improve communication further must include a demonstration video for parents to

view, which graphically demonstrates the testing process. This would have alleviated concerns of

parent with low levels of literacy, reduced anxiety and increased take-up.

6.2. SECONDARY SCHOOL MASS TESTING – MERTHYR TYDFIL31

The education of our children and young people is likely to have been adversely impacted upon by

schools being closed for 3 months during lock-down and continued year group closures due to

isolation. The aim is to keep schools open and to engage as many pupils and staff as possible

throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic32.

Education outcomes are a priority, and this is where the mass testing of secondary aged pupils (11-

16) has been critical, in order to ascertain if the school environment contributes significant risk in the

transmission of COVID-19 and to assess the number of positive cases identified.

Staff and pupils in Merthyr Tydfil schools were offered two tests on consecutive weeks.

Methods used:

It was critical that the Learning Department recruited the correct members of staff from schools to

lead on the delivery within their respective locations. Schools were then expected to quickly identify

volunteer staff from within their locations and the LA to assist colleagues in schools for a successful

roll out of this initiative. By working together, it has empowered all stakeholders to play a collective

role within this vital piece of work.

Two staff members from the Learning Department had been identified for their skill set, it was

imperative to quickly establish a system of working and implement a timeline of events for key

stakeholders at the forefront. The Learning Department Support Team, proved essential in their

support, delivery, advice and commitment.

Each school was instructed to find a suitable location within the school’s premises for testing, and

then requested to produce procedural documents. From the outset, the Chief Education Officer (CEO)

and identified Learning Department Support Team were heavily involved with school Senior

Leadership Teams (SLT) to ensure that all processes were formulated in accordance with expectations.

The Learning Department Support Team were responsible for co-ordinating delivery of sufficient stock

to each school based on pupil and staff numbers, within a quick turnaround, due to time constraints.

This was to ensure that the schools could operate this initiative with minimal risk on the narrow margin

of identified testing days.

The Learning Department Support Team devised an Excel recording/monitoring record, in order for

schools to capture their log for the days of testing. This was developed as the schools were not being

provided with equipment to scan barcodes. On receipt of the Excel record, schools were able to pre-

populate pupil and staff information to alleviate any additional pressures on school support staff at

the commencement date of testing. Two schools were innovative in their thinking and devised their

31 Afon Taf High School; Bishop Hedley RC High School; Cyfarthfa High School; Pen-y-Dre High School, Ty Dysgu Homfray, Greenfield School 32 MTCBC Mass COVID-19 Testing (see appendices)

40 | P a g e

own ‘in house’ applications over the course of a weekend to read barcodes electronically, therefore

further reducing the stresses of support staff and human error.

The Learning Department Support Team had a final meeting with school SLTs before Monday 30th

November 2020, roll out.

From the outset on the morning of the 30th November 2020, the LA support staff attended all

secondary schools in order to attend briefings before the commencement of testing. This was

imperative to show support to all staff assisting and allowed LA officers to ensure that due process

was implemented. The school visits continued throughout the course of the day. Stock was

continuously monitored and replenished where identified as needed. Learning Department Support

Team met with the Chief Education Officer on school sites to view the good working practices applied.

A debrief took place at the end of each working day, between the Chief Education Officer and Learning

Department Support Team to discuss any concerns that have arisen during the day.


Supply/logistics

Day two of testing saw a reduced number of staff from the Health Board, but Learning Department Support Team had trained additional LA support staff to take their place so that a full complement could be provided to schools.

Schools were not provided with equipment to scan bar codes.

What went well?

Learning Department Support Team established contact with school support staff to ensure they

were familiar with their continued responsibilities for day three of testing, where needed, and

checked their well-being.

Learning Department Support Team visited all schools and additional stock delivered to the

schools; stock check undertaken for the following day.

At the end of the first week of testing in secondary schools, feedback was sought from schools to

identify any matters arising from week one. In addition, schools were also briefed regarding LA

support staff attending for week two of testing.

A visit was arranged for colleagues from Rhondda Cynon Taf to attend schools in operation to

learn about the set up and implementation of this initiative.

6.3. SECONDARY SCHOOL MASS TESTING – LOWER CYNON VALLEY

Due to the later start date of the lower Cynon Valley pilot, staff and pupils in this area were offered

one test in the school environment and encouraged to take up community testing the following week.

Methods used:

Rhondda Cynon Taf Education and Inclusion Services established a project planning group in

November 2020. The resulting project plan33 identified each stage (planning; implementation; results

33 Lower Cynon Testing Pilot Project Plan (see appendices)

41 | P a g e

and completion) with detailed milestones/actions for each responsible officer. A lessons learned

capture log supported this plan34.

An operational guidance document35 was produced which details the systems and processes and

associated location, staffing and operational requirements to administer testing in an efficient, safe

and timely manner.

During the period of 7th to 9th of December 2020, all children and staff in Mountain Ash Comprehensive

School were offered the opportunity for a LFD test within the school.


The lessons learned capture log, highlighted the following:

Planning

Earlier communication from WG regarding the confirmation and announcements of the testing would have been beneficial to enable sufficient planning time.

Site set up

Pupil testing areas - booths were not effective as there was no line of sight to pupils to ensure tests were being completed correctly. Examination desks used. Screen with mirror attached for pupils' ease of use to undertake the test.

Contingency plans need to be put in place if no Wi-Fi is available or is disrupted; LA staff required connectivity to access pupil data.

Estimate quantities of PPE and cleaning materials required on site for duration of opening.

Ensure there is a clear re-order process. Have one person in charge of all PPE and supply deliveries (preferably council officer) to avoid duplication.

Estimate quantities of test kits, barcodes and NHS cards, required for the duration of testing period. Ensure that these supplies are delivered at least a week in advance of testing commencing (these were supplied to Rhondda Cynon Taf on the late afternoon on Friday and we began testing commenced on the Monday).

Ensure there is clear re-ordering process.

Supply/logistics

Queue management - pupils queued in an area outside the hall and this time was used to complete a procedure briefing and to distribute the NHS cards and barcodes.

Ensure NHS barcodes are available at the outset to enable pupil identification through the ‘Sims’ system and for card pupil information to be prepopulated. Delays were experienced in this regard.

Testing process

Ensure there is a procedure to contact, isolate and inform parents of positive pupils. Identify and make subsequent arrangements for the testing of close contacts.

The NHS Wales Information Service (NWIS) phone registration was inefficient. Registration and results were uploaded after all testing was complete. It took a team of 5 people a day to register and update results. An excel import into NWIS would be more efficient and accurate data would be provided.

Workforce/training

Sufficient numbers of testing staff are required to ensure no delays. Also, staff contingency in the event of any staff absences.

34 Lower Cynon Testing Pilot Lessons Learned Capture Log (see appendices) 35 Operational Guidance Mass Testing Mountain Ash Comprehensive School (see appendices)

42 | P a g e

Rhondda Cynon Taf had to independently source relevant training (to undertake the tests and the correct use of PPE). Improved signposting would have been beneficial.

Training – A supply of test kits and PPE should be made available to undertake training prior to the testing taking place.

What went well?

Invaluable first-hand experience of observing testing in two schools in Merthyr Tydfil to inform

local arrangements.

Train-the-Trainer approach was adopted and worked well, with thanks to Merthyr Tydfil County

Borough Council colleagues.

Training took take place in the actual location where test procedure and pupil flow could be

demonstrated.

Inclusion of the Local Health Board nursing and clinical support staff was considered to be hugely

positive in terms of student influence, engagement and high quality instructional support; their

presence and skilful intervention undoubtedly helped ensure that some of the more vulnerable

students undertook their tests. There was only one invalid test throughout the testing.

6.4. RESOURCES

This section focuses on the workforce, logistical and financial resources required as part of the schools

based testing.

6.4.1 WORKFORCE RESOURCES

It should be noted that the Merthyr Tydfil model had a higher population coverage and as a

consequence there were economies of scale.

Work has been undertaken by finance colleagues to identify the expenditure that represents

‘additionality’, noting that wherever possible, existing resources were deployed to deliver the pilots.

Table 3, shows the workforce deployed to complete the testing in both Merthyr Tydfil and the lower

Cynon Valley.

Table 3: Schools workforce resources*

*This table was presented in the schools section, but is repeated here for ease of reference

Actual no.

of staff

utilised

Full Time

Equivalent

(FTE) Staff

Numbers

Actual no.

of staff

utilised

Full Time

Equivalent

(FTE) Staff

Numbers

Actual no. of

staff utilised

Full Time

Equivalent

(FTE) Staff

Numbers

Schools 76 20.74 41.0 16.7 117.0 37.4

TOTALSLower Cynon Valley Merthyr Tydfil

43 | P a g e

Note: Merthyr Tydfil includes 4 Comprehensive Schools, 1 Special School and 1 Pupil Referral Unit.

The lower Cynon Valley pilot included 1 Comprehensive School.

6.4.2. LOGISTICAL RESOURCES

Procurement teams sourced the following resources to enable the testing:

Testing Equipment – testing kits, clinical waste bags, barcodes, NHS cards, phones.

PPE – gloves, masks, visors and aprons.

Cleaning – cleaning products included virucidal wipes, spray, hand sanitiser, tissues. Onsite

cleaners were redeployed to support the cleaning down of testing stations between pupils.

Equipment – exam desks, sneeze screens, mirrors, bins, vomit receptacles, yellow lockable clinical

waste bin.

Signage – floor markings (directional arrows) 2 metre distance signs, testing guidance for pupils.

6.4.3. FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Table 4, provides a summary of the costs associated with the delivery of testing within the schools

(Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley).

Table 4: Summary of costs associated with schools tested**

**This table was presented in the schools section, but is repeated here for ease of reference

It can be seen that the cost per test varies considerably between the two Local Authority areas.

Table 5, shows a comparison of school and community testing with average costs.

Table 5: Cost per tests in community and schools

Community School

Merthyr Tydfil £14.73 £17.96

Lower Cynon Valley

£32.49 £45.89

Average cost* £20.01 £21.24 *Calculated as total cost of tests in all community venues or schools divided by total number of tests in each setting.

Merthyr Tydfil RCT - Lower Cynon

Valley

MASS POPULATION TESTING - SCHOOLS

Total Costs - Schools Testing (Staffing Costs) £64,458 £21,843

Lateral Flow Tests (LFT)

Number of LFTs Undertaken 3,588 476

Cost per LFT - Schools (i.e. in relation to the costs

incurred by LAs) - excludes cost of the test

equipment (assumed funded by UK Govt)

£17.96 £45.89

44 | P a g e

The average cost of delivery in the community and schools is very similar. The variation in cost

between Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley arises from the fact that although total costs for

both pilot areas was similar (reflecting broadly similar project planning, delivery and physical

infrastructure arrangements), there was a significant difference in the targeted population and the

resulting number of tests undertaken - 35,001 and 3,588 respectively for community and schools in

Merthyr Tydfil and 14,798 and 476 in the lower Cynon Valley. The difference in the total number of

tests for each area has been a key factor in driving the ‘cost per test’ unit costs calculated.

6.5. TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF UPTAKE OUTCOMES

The data for the school’s uptake and positivity was not able to be analysed separately from the Whole

Area Testing pilot analysis. However, inferences can be drawn from the analysis, as follows.

6.5.1. UPTAKE

Figure 10: Lateral Flow Device tests in Merthyr Tydfil, by age and gender, 21st November to 18th

December 2020 (all tests including repeats)

45 | P a g e

Figure 11: Number of LFD tests in the lower Cynon Valley, by Age and Gender, 5th December to

22nd December 2020

Figures 10 and 11 (above), demonstrate that the schools pilot contributed greatly to the inclusion on

the population age group 11-19 years with 4,064 LFD tests undertaken in schools. In addition there

was a reasonable split in gender uptake. The attendance at schools for the testing period is shown in

Tables 6 and 7 (below).

In Merthyr Tydfil it can be seen that attendance reduced 68.7% in the week beginning 30th November,

when testing commenced in the schools, and further to 50.1 % in the week beginning the 7th

December. In the lower Cynon Valley the attendance was 68.8% for the week beginning 7th December,

when testing commenced.

Given the lower levels of attendance and the significant contribution of school-based testing, this

demonstrates the importance of the school setting in encouraging uptake.

46 | P a g e

Table 6: Merthyr Tydfil – Weekly attendance rates (all settings)

Week Commencing Attendance Ave (%)

01/09/2020

07/09/2020

14/09/2020 87.4

21/09/2020 68.1

28/09/2020 59.0

05/10/2020 66.9

12/10/2020 69.8

19/10/2020 61.0

26/10/2020 Half term

02/11/2020 35.7

Year 9,10,11 online learning only

09/11/2020 82.2

16/11/2020 76.1

23/11/2020 73.5

30/11/2020 68.7

07/12/2020 50.1

14/12/2020 Online Learning

21/12/2020 Schools Closed

Table 7: Lower Cynon Valley - Weekly attendance rates (Mountain Ash Comprehensive School)

Week Commencing Attendance Ave (%)

01/09/2020 28.7 07/09/2020 78.5 14/09/2020 73.9 21/09/2020 73.4 28/09/2020 81.0 05/10/2020 86.1 12/10/2020 86.0 19/10/2020 78.3 26/10/2020 No attendance 02/11/2020 No attendance 09/11/2020 84.5 16/11/2020 85.2 23/11/2020 83.6 30/11/2020 80.7 07/12/2020 68.8 14/12/2020 Online Learning 21/12/2020 Schools Closed

One school observed that non consents were high amongst pupils with English as an additional

language (EAL), possibly linked to zero hours work contracts and implications for those families.

47 | P a g e

Some pupils who did not consent to testing in week 1, consented in week 2, indicating they became

more comfortable with it after others had completed the tests.

Some pupils were taken to the community mass testing sites operating within the Merthyr Tydfil and

the lower Cynon Valley areas. These may have also included children who resided in the pilot areas,

but who are educated outside of the pilot areas (e.g. children attending Welsh medium and faith

schools).

6.5.2. POSITIVITY RATE BY AGE GROUP

Figures 12 and 13, show the rates of positivity in different age groups in Merthyr Tydfil and the lower

Cynon Valley.

Figure 12: LFD positivity rates by age group, Merthyr Tydfil, 21st November to 18th December 2020

48 | P a g e

Figure 13: LFD positivity rates by age group, lower Cynon Valley, 5th - 22nd December 2020

Of the 4,064 LFD tests undertaken in schools, there were 15 positive test results. This is a positivity

rate of 0.37% in school pupils. This compares with a population positivity rate in Merthyr Tydfil of

2.3% and the lower Cynon Valley of 2.6% for the Whole Area Testing pilot. Whilst not all school staff

and children were tested and some may have gone to community testing facilities, it is clear that the

positivity rate is much lower in the school environment than in the community. This provides strong

support to the theory that school-based transmission is very limited, as observed in the Review of

transmission of COVID-19 associated with schools in Cwm Taf Morgannwg.

When all testing is analysed by age group in both areas, it can be seen that the positivity rate of the

11-19 age group, that includes school pupils in this pilot, is much higher, indicating that isolation from

the school environment is effective. This higher positivity rate in the general population of 11-19 year

age group could also be reflective of higher rates of positivity and infection in older children and young

adults, as post 16 education is provided by the college in Merthyr Tydfil, whose students’ also

participated in community testing.

6.6. COMPARISONS – LEARNING FROM OTHER AREAS36

Liverpool mass testing pilot:37

In Liverpool, half of secondary school pupils took up testing, impacted by negative media from outside

Liverpool. Following a briefing on Thursday 8th November for secondary school head teachers to

prepare for testing at schools, an opt-in consent process was agreed. However, one school (not at

the briefing) misunderstood their school would begin testing on the following Monday and sent an

opt-out letter to parents on the Friday. Although this was recalled and replaced with an opt-in letter

36 Liverpool for comparisons 37 Reference Liverpool “Interim Report on Liverpool Covid-19 Community Testing Pilot”

49 | P a g e

on Sunday, it fuelled negative discussion on social media, which damaged uptake of testing at schools.

Rates of consent varied considerably by school. An average of 52.6% of pupils at participating

secondary schools (31 out of 33) were tested. A total of 32,411 tests (84% pupils; 16% staff) were done

at schools. Although community testing in Liverpool had a much lower participation rate, this data

also supports the importance of school-based testing in the uptake rates for this age group as shown

in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Proportion of Liverpool City population by age group taking up LFD tests

6.7. SYSTEMS AND PROCESS WORKING

Merthyr Tydfil - The huge amount of time and commitment was required by all involved and cannot

be under-estimated. This is a daily (including weekends) intense process of ‘learning from scratch’.

A timeline included in the Merthyr Tydfil Secondary School Mass COVID-19 Testing Report2 (pages 6-

9) details the intensity of activity.

There was a real benefit of daily meetings to plan, but the volume of pupils within each setting will

greatly affect this planning.

It was considered to be very useful to have Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) present during

testing and the advice they offered relating to infection control and cleaning procedures was valued.

The EHOs praised local processes.

The vast majority of parents were very supportive and grateful.

Lower Cynon Valley - There is a need to ensure that an appropriate amount of time is allocated to

plan robust processes and procedures. Schools will need to commit the appropriate staff, time and

resources to enable the development and implementation of a robust project plan with relevant

50 | P a g e

timescales. Rhondda Cynon Taf established a corporate project team of senior officers to deliver both

the community and school-based testing, which met on a daily basis to develop the project plan and

to manage any exceptions raised. This team comprised of officers from Public Health, Education,

Streetcare & Waste Management, School Transport, Communication Team, Community Services, ICT,

Estates, Finance and Procurement. The school Governing Body was supportive, and the Chair received

a daily progress report from a senior education officer.

The vast majority of parents and carers were supportive of the process as it ensured continuity of their

children’s learning. Pupil behaviour was exemplary, and they were keen to take part in the process.

CONCLUSIONS:

In concluding this section of the report, it is important to reflect back on the aims and objectives of

the Whole Area Testing pilot, in which the schools pilot was embedded. The aims were:

1. To test whether or not large-scale testing can yield a significant and sustained reduction in




measures.





7. To assess the impact of testing on behaviour of participant.

In respect of aim 1, this will be assessed as part of the evaluation of the Whole Area Testing pilot,

currently ongoing. It is clear that the schools pilot demonstrated that this was a significant element

of aim 2, to make testing accessible to the area’s whole population and uptake was incentivised

through clear communication with parents and carers. In addition, it contributed to aim 3, by

identifying 15 asymptomatic cases and isolating them and their contacts to break chains of

transmission. Isolating cases and contacts contribute to aim 5, protecting those at highest risk. The

uptake rates in schools indicate that school communities were empowered and participated. The

pilot did not specifically target those pupils who were self-isolating, although they may have attended

community testing venues. There were no behavioural insights work in the school pilot, to assess aim

7 to look at the impact of testing on participant behaviour.

The objectives of the Whole Area Testing pilot were to:






The schools pilot achieved objective 1, providing standard operating procedures to form a blueprint

for future testing in this setting. It clearly achieved objective 2, in understanding the much lower

positivity rate in schools than in the wider community, adding to other observational work. The

schools pilot contributed to objective 3, by providing useful intelligence to inform further targeting of

51 | P a g e

community testing. The pilot also contributed to objective 4, demonstrating that the new technology

of LFD testing could be quickly applied to school environments.

The schools pilot was a success in achieving and contributing to the aims and objectives of the Whole

Area Testing pilot and demonstrated that it is feasible and possible to undertake whole school testing

with LFDs. This was achieved with the good will and determination of Local Education Authority,

school and other supporting staff with the aim of ensuring it was safe for pupils to continue their

education in the school environment during the Pandemic.

The low proportion of positive asymptomatic cases indicates that the control measures through the

Test, Trace and Protect system, together with the control measures in place in secondary schools are

effective.

As with the Liverpool schools pilot, this pilot indicated the importance of school based testing in

encouraging uptake of testing. In addition the process of testing generated confidence in this setting

to undertake testing and isolate asymptomatic staff and pupils.

The lessons learned during the schools pilot will inform any extension to the wider school

communities.

The rationale for undertaking mass testing is ultimately about children and getting them back into an

educational routine. Every person who is infectious but asymptomatic is potentially a “super

spreader”. It is important that asymptomatic carriage is identified early to break routes of

transmission.

One size does not and cannot fit all in schools, and Head Teachers and Senior Leadership Teams have

to have ownership of how the process is undertaken, and the delivery model in their school, so it

works for that school community.

Many schools had to suspend their normal teaching and use of facilities such as sports and dining halls

whilst undertaking testing, and this is clearly impractical if mass testing was to be established in the

longer term. However, on balance, the disruption caused by undertaking LFD testing is clearly less

significant than self-isolating for a 10 day period.

It is evident how incredibly and rightly proud the school community are of their achievements.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The pilot in schools demonstrated that whole school testing was possible and successful. The

following recommendations are made to assist further roll out in Wales:

1. Whole school testing requires considerable resources to facilitate the process. Sufficient time to plan the introduction of whole school testing should be allowed to effectively introduce the testing.

2. Co-ordination from the Local Education Authority is essential to facilitate good communication, the logistics and equipment needed, and to quickly respond to any issues arising.

52 | P a g e

3. The School Leadership Team should have the flexibility to allow each school to determine the most effective way to deliver the programme in their environment. If all teams are trained, they can take ownership of the programme using generic operational guidance in support.

4. Effective communication with staff, pupils and parents or carers is essential to ensure trust in

the programme and high uptake.

5. Messaging to schools should be streamlined, as multiple sources can be confusing. Clear

guidance is needed from Welsh Government, allowing scope for bespoke operational

arrangements that can be tailored to reflect the local needs of each school community. This

should include: a generic pack for schools, with practical examples such as animated videos

showing the test in process, etc. Training materials already in circulation within the UK (e.g.

Universities) should be assessed by the Welsh Government, and if suitable adapted for use

within schools in Wales, e.g. Welsh language.

6. Effective, accessible IT systems should be available to support the testing process and

equipment such as bar code readers should be provided.

7. Clarity on flow of data for General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) purposes would be

beneficial.

8. Whole school testing is very disruptive to teaching and normal delivery of the curriculum. If

introduced, it would be helpful to limit it to the start of the school e.g. start of term or

immediately following lockdown when schools are closed.

9. The LFD test is quick and effective in identifying asymptomatic cases. The use of this test for

contacts of cases has great potential to limit the number of children self-isolating and missing

school. If such contacts opt out of testing, self-isolation for 10 days after the last contact must

be maintained, as well as for any days that the test is not available e.g. weekends and holidays.

10. In using a more selected testing process e.g. for staff and pupil contacts of cases, routinely in

schools, it should be noted that there are some limiting practical factors in this approach. In

particular, the testing would need to commence at the start of the school day, pupils

undergoing the test would need to be isolated until the results are known. This has the

potential to create a bottleneck at the start of the school day. In addition there is limited

space to test large numbers of pupils, without disrupting other school activities e.g. dining

halls. This could only be undertaken for small numbers of contacts and not whole year groups.

Guidance may need to be amended to provide greater clarity to identify true contacts rather

than class, year group or travel bubbles. Contingency arrangements would need to be put in

place to safely isolate any positive cases until parents could collect them or safe transport is

arranged. This will cause particular problems for schools with a large catchment area reliant

on school transport, if parents or carers cannot leave work at short notice or do not have

access to a car.

11. Selective use of LFDs could be extended to all staff to maintain numbers at work, including

agency and peripatetic staff, interview candidates and contractors entering the school

environment.

53 | P a g e

7. RESOURCES

This section provides an overview of the resources deployed in the preparation and delivery of the

Whole Area Testing pilot. This includes workforce, logistical (such as sites and equipment) and

financial resources deployed.

7.1. WORKFORCE RESOURCES

The section above, on the governance, planning and implementation of the pilot, provides an

overview of the type of workforce resource and time committed that was required for the strategic

leadership, planning and project management of the over-arching pilot and two local geographical

area elements of the pilot. This element of the workforce has also been included in the costings below.

In terms of the actual front line delivery of the testing service, identifying, securing and training the

workforce was one of the most challenging aspects of the pilot.

In the Merthyr Tydfil area, 155 Military personnel were secured via Military Aid to Civilian Authorities

(MACA) to assist in the roll-out of the pilot across the County Borough, but this was after the launch

of the main hub site at Merthyr Tydfil Leisure Centre, for which the Local Authority had to source staff

themselves. The additional Military personnel were only involved on a fixed term basis and therefore

a workforce transition plan was required so that Military personnel could exit and Local Authority staff

take their place where required.

In the lower Cynon Valley area the Local Authority provided all the required staff from the off-set,

moving staff from non-essential roles at the time into the Whole Area Testing pilot as a priority.

A workforce was developed, using the blue print from the Standard Operating Procedure and

experience shared from the Liverpool pilot and the Military, to outline an organisational structure for

the testing sites for the pilot.

The job roles include the following:

Area Testing Site (ATS) Site Manager - responsible for the overall running of the ATS.

Bay Co-ordinator - responsible for the routine management and co-ordination of the ATS on behalf of the Site Manager; provides assistance and guidance to other staff.

Processing Operative - conducts the elements of the LFD testing process.

Cleaning Staff - cleans in accordance with agreed instructions.

Test Assistant - guides participants through their involvement in the testing process, is responsible for guiding participants’ movements within the ATS and for instructing participants on how to conduct a swab.

Registration Assistant - aids participants through the registration process as required by those without access to personal IT (smart phone) or that lack the technical ability to register without assistance. More participants required assistance that was originally anticipated, this will be exacerbated by demographic factors.

Results Recorder - checks the results of completed tests and records them on the relevant IT system. A written template designed by the operative may be used to track the number of tests and ensure all are checked and subsequently released on schedule. Each test may have a serial number next to it, to track the number of tests per day.

54 | P a g e

Supplies Co-ordinator - the storeman for the ATS manages and co-ordinates: the in loading and out loading of stores, and tracks usage of stores on behalf of the ATS Comd (Manager). This can be a secondary duty depending on workforce requirements.

Queue Co-ordinator - the queue co-ordinators act as ‘Greeters’. Assess the participant’s requirements, manage expectations of queue times, aids the registration assistants and act as the liaison between participants in the queue and the ATS Site Manager. May ask if there are any symptoms and assess the participants’ technical ability. If the participant is capable then they can be provided with a card and bar code to register with. If the participant struggles, they can be issued with a card only and asked to make themselves known to a registration assistant. It’s recommended to have someone prepared to manage complex situations.

Receptionist - responsible for checking registration and administration of participants. The receptionist can ask the individual to stick one of the bar codes on the card where indicated and issue a swab, then direct them to a testing assistant and tell the participant that the instructions are in the pods. They should not provide a long brief as this causes backlogs.

Runners - some ATS Site Managers have found that the use of runners to transport swabs increases the efficiency of the ATS. Site Managers must ensure that runners are complying with the PPE requirements of the job roles that they are assisting. For example by changing gloves every swab if taking them to the processing operative.

Taken from the local Standard Operating Instructions, workforce guidance indicated the following workforce ratios as a guide, as shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Recommended workforce ratios

55 | P a g e

An analysis of the workforce resources deployed for the Whole Area Testing pilot in Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley is set out in Appendix38, and a summary in Table 9.

Table 9: Summary of workforce resources

With regard to Full Time Equivalent staff numbers for each workforce area (excluding Military

personnel), this has been based on the testing sites and duration of the pilots as set out in 5.2.1 (with

the approach being to calculate the total number of hours worked, divided by the full duration of each

respective pilot (to calculate a daily number of hours over the pilot period) and then divided by a

standard number of full time daily hours i.e. 7 hours 30 minutes (Health) or 7 hours 24 minutes (Local

Authority)). The ‘Actual no. of staff utilised’ total is significantly higher than the total ‘Full Time

Equivalent (FTE) Staff Numbers’ due to officers working differing hours on different days (including

rotas), for example, officers undertaking cleaning duties typically worked less than full time equivalent

hours each day – this translated into 12.5 FTEs but 51 people were needed to undertake these duties

(reflecting cleaning duties being required at multiple sites on the same days).

38 Mass population testing in Merthyr Tydfil and lower Cynon Valley - summary of costs (see appendices)

56 | P a g e

In addition to the above, testing was undertaken in specific comprehensive schools and residents were

also provided with the option of undertaking a home test. The workforce resources for each are set

out in Table 10, below:

Table 10: Schools workforce resources

Note: Merthyr Tydfil includes 4 Comprehensive Schools, 1 Special School and 1 Pupil Referral Unit.

The lower Cynon Valley pilot included 1 Comprehensive School.

Home testing – the workforce resources (Table 11) relate to the lower Cynon Valley pilot only, where

officers made telephone contact with residents on the shielded patient list to inform them of the

option of a home test and, at the same time, aimed to help alleviated residents’ anxiety. The resources

required to do this were considerable and a judgement would be needed as to the value of this

additional engagement.

Table 11: Home testing resources for the lower Cynon Valley

Actual no.

of staff

utilised

Full Time

Equivalent

(FTE) Staff

Numbers

Actual no.

of staff

utilised

Full Time

Equivalent

(FTE) Staff

Numbers

Actual no. of

staff utilised

Full Time

Equivalent

(FTE) Staff

Numbers

Schools 76 20.74 41.0 16.7 117.0 37.4

TOTALSLower Cynon Valley Merthyr Tydfil

Actual no.

of staff

utilised

Full Time

Equivalent

(FTE) Staff

Numbers

Total - Shielding

Patient List calling (to

make residents aware

of hometesting option)

17.0 17.0

Lower Cynon - 17 officers deployed and

worked full time on the project over a 9

day period

Lower Cynon Valley

57 | P a g e

A key point to note in terms of workforce resources is the availability of sufficient capacity within each

organisation to enable the planning and delivery of whole area population testing. For the Merthyr

Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley pilots, the pool of resources were deployed through repurposing

existing staff members, this being achieved through a slowdown of some core activities, utilising spare

capacity within some frontline services that were already affected by lockdown restrictions (e.g.

Abercynon Leisure Centre being closed to the public) and engaging additional agency workers to

support the delivery of the pilots.

Workforce lessons learned:

The following provides a summary of some of the main lessons learned from a workforce perspective

during the pilot, which may be of assistance to others considering the adoption of a similar approach:

Do not underestimate the workforce planning and amount of staff required, including building in contingency arrangements. If Military personnel are being used to help the service get up and running, there is a need to have transfer arrangements in place for when the Military remove their workforce, if some services are to remain in situ.

Ensure enough tests, IT, PPE, barcodes and other kit is available to support training purposes prior to opening.

Allocate staff numbers and roles prior to opening of site. For any satellite sites, ensure staff are able to experience or at least witness how the centre(s) work that are already open, prior to deployment). In this pilot, Merthyr Tydfil Leisure Centre was utilised as the training centre for new staff before redeployment.

Importantly, ensure that the personal protective equipment policy and procedures are confirmed with all staff.

Ensure there is clear direction on the viability of staff numbers and potential skills in areas such as the following: o Front of house – customer service skills o Queue Manager – customer service skills o Testing Assistant – customer service skills o Analyst – dexterity, repetitive, processing o Additional support roles : morning stock take, collection of daily statistics.

Provide enough information from an engagement perspective so that potential staff understand risks and testing protocols.

Adequate numbers of staff are required to ensure there is a balance between registrations and testing; this may well need to be flexed with experience, as required.

Rotas need to be flexible and planned for the duration of opening (for the shorter opening sites) in advance.

Staff coming through the system need to complete new starter forms in advance.

Operating procedure for the testing room - staff must include end of day clean and disposal of all waste – generate basic duty lists for each role.

Allocation of duties to staff based on skillset (e.g. stock control).

Staff should be trained in all aspects to allow them to move from job to job, this helps with breaks and variety.

Do not underestimate the time it takes to build a rota for site operation.

58 | P a g e

In the pilot experience, in terms of staff safety, out of 14,000 tests, only 1 staff member tested positive. This type of information needs to be share with staff involved so they have clear facts.

NHS On-line Training – access details provided by the Military. Information was sent out to each employee and reinforced in face to face training although there was no ability of ensuring completion.

Pay rates need to be considered for different roles and there was some feedback about the ability to make roles more interchangeable. Good monitoring arrangements were required when authorising timesheets if staff did move in between roles throughout a shift.

Staff aged under 18 – when queried with Welsh Government about whether staff aged under 18 could undertake the testing role, there was no specific guidance about age in the SOP as it focused more on having appropriately trained individuals. It was suggested that we should gain agreement from Public Health Wales. Due to the time constraints at the time we ensured that those aged under 18 were employed as Processing Assistant/Receptionist and not Testing Assistants.

Shift Pattern – number of staff – initially the numbers were based on the assumption that staff would undertake the long shifts (11 hours). If working on a standard 7.5 working day more staff would have been needed. The preference during the pilot was for staff to work longer shifts which would reduce cross overs and staff testing hours. Whilst the pilot testing centres were only open for a short period of time, this worked fine and there were some other shifts patterns in place. However should mass testing continue for longer periods, then consideration should be given adopting a specific rota/working pattern.

All staff involved in the pilot should be commended for their flexible and supportive approach in helping make the pilot work.

A ‘train the trainer’ approach was adopted and this worked reasonably well.

Face to Face Training – worked well with Train the Trainer approach. Positive feedback was received. Since the training, Managers have developed a video which will show staff what to expect at the Testing Centres – this will complement existing training and will be valuable particularly where training does not take place in a live testing setting.

Set out clear job roles and work plans and use these in training, this definitely assisted and made sure all staff knew what they needed to do.

7.2. LOGISTICAL RESOURCES

In terms of delivering the testing service, there were a range of logistical resources that had to be

deployed. As a reminder and in summary, details of the logistical resources deployed are set out

below:

7.2.1. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Merthyr Tydfil - Whole Area Testing was delivered between 21st November and the 18th December

across 14 sites (noting that 1 site was open for the full duration (to 18th December) and the other sites

for specifics days within this period).

The specific sites were: Merthyr Tydfil Leisure Centre, Aberfan Community Centre, Trelewis

Community Centre, Bedlinog RFC, Dowlais Community Centre, The Willows Centre (Troedyrhiw), Clinic

https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=261&d=nMWQ4E7s3BOfBKA7_JpmQOOaGJt5-fhp1_R8sBThmQ&u=https%3a%2f%2fdrive%2egoogle%2ecom%2ffile%2fd%2f1AlxFb7ONXIov4%5fgNzabitYi6p9D%5f3hOD%2fview%3fusp%3ddrivesdk

59 | P a g e

(Gurnos), Dowlais Engine House, Quakers Yard Community Centre, Cefn Community Centre, Pontsticill

Memorial Hall, Alpha House (Heolgerrig)), Dowlais Rugby Club and St Matthias Church (Treharris).

Lower Cynon Valley Whole Area Testing was delivered between 5th and 20th December across 8 sites

(noting that 1 site was open for the full duration and the other sites for specific days within this period).

The specific sites were: Abercynon Social Hall, Abercynon Sports Centre, Abercwmboi RFC, Cynon

Valley Indoor Bowls (Mountain Ash), Cwmaman Hall, Fernhill and Glenboi Community Centre, The Feel

Good Factory (Mountain Ash) and Penrhiwceiber Community Hall.

7.2.2. EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORT SERVICES

The equipment and support services required for the pilot included the following:

1. The UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) provided the following to the Merthyr Tydfil

pilot:

Sample collection kits and lateral flow antigen test devices

Digital enablement including barcodes and phones

Personal Protective Equipment (including gloves, aprons, masks, goggles/visors)

2. Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Councils provided:

Physical infrastructure (including provision of booths and site security)

Clinical waste services

Communication and engagement services and materials

Equipment required for the set-up and day to day running of a test site, including:

o Cleaning agents;

o Tissues;

o Signage and barriers;

o Consumables (non-medical);

o Catering;

o Safety (including fire extinguishers, defibrillator);

o Clinical waste (including bins, bags, containers);

o General waste (including bins, bags, containers);

o Miscellaneous (whiteboards, printers, tools etc.).

Lessons learned on the logistical elements of the pilot can be found in the section on logistics.

60 | P a g e

7.3. FINANCIAL RESOURCES

This section sets out an overview of the gross costs (i.e. additional and opportunity costs) in preparing

for and delivering the Whole Area Testing, and also provides cost per test information.

Summary of Gross Costs

A summary of the gross costs incurred to deliver LFD at mass population testing sites is set out in Table

12.

Table 12 – Total Gross Costs – Mass Population Testing Sites (non-schools)

Note: Direct Staffing (Local Authority) for Merthyr Tydfil includes a notional cost for Local Authority

staff to represent the staffing cost if Military support was not provided (with the actual cost of the

deployment of Military personnel excluded from the analysis). In addition, work is currently on-going

to identify the expenditure that represents ‘additional costs’ to the organisations, noting that

wherever possible existing resources were deployed to deliver the pilots.

In terms of cost variations between pilots, the main areas included:

Project Management – project management arrangements were put in place for each pilot.

The number and range of officers (and their estimated time allocation) were specific to each

pilot and covered the following key disciplines: designated project manager and designated

deputy project manager; Environmental Health Officers; representatives from Adult Services

and Children’s Services; Education officers (including Catering Services); Customer Care, ICT;

Communications; Democratic Services; HR; and Finance;

Direct Staffing (LA) – the key influencing factor being the size and scale differences of each

pilot;

Premises costs (via LA) – primarily due to the lower Cynon Valley pilot incurring site security

costs (including overnight security) that were not incurred / to the same level for the Merthyr

Tydfil pilot; and

Purchase of equipment and materials – primarily driven by the extent that each organisation

was able to utilise existing resources. Purchases included booths, containers, metal laboratory

trays for testing, staff badges, staff flags and clicker counters.


Valley

MASS POPULATION TESTING SITES - NON-

SCHOOLS

Strategic Leadership (LA / Health / PHW) £19,641 £17,000

Project Management (LA) £23,607 £45,728

Project Planning (LA) £59,369 £64,858

Direct staffing (LA) £294,323 £222,996

Premises costs (via LA) £52,446 £87,882

Purchase of equipment & materials (LA) £41,068 £25,158

Support Service Costs (LA) £0 £7,010

Other costs (marketing, printing, etc) (LA) £25,234 £10,209

Total Gross Costs - Mass Population Testing Sites

(Non-Schools)£515,688 £480,839

61 | P a g e

Cost Per Test Information

The costing and testing information has been brought together to calculate a cost per Lateral Flow

Device / Positive Lateral Flow Device and Confirmatory PCR test, as set out in Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13: Gross costs per Lateral Flow Device Testing / Positive Lateral Flow Device Testing

The calculated Gross Cost Per LFD test for the lower Cynon Valley pilot (£32.49) is £17.76 higher than

that calculated for the Merthyr Tydfil pilot (£14.73) - this is due to similar total costs for both pilot

areas, reflecting broadly similar project planning, delivery and physical infrastructure arrangements,

but a significant difference in the targeted population and the resulting number of tests undertaken

i.e. 35,001 in Merthyr Tydfil and 14,798 in the lower Cynon Valley. The difference in the total number

of tests for each area has been a key factor in driving the ‘cost per test’ unit costs calculated. This

principle also follows through in the calculated unit costs for ‘Positive LFD tests’.

With specific regard to confirmatory PCR tests, it was required to have such tests done for every

positive LFD test. To do this there was a team of 2 healthcare workers and 8 WAST staff on site every

day for the full operational hours in each of the two main testing sites. A high number of people with

positive LFD test chose not to stay for a confirmatory PCR test. The percentage of residents that did

not take a follow up confirmatory PCR test after a positive LFD test was 48% in Merthyr Tydfil and 39%

in the lower Cynon Valley. This meant that the teams were onsite to deliver an average of 12.5

confirmatory PCR tests per day per test site. The calculated gross cost per confirmatory PCR test is set

out in Table 14.


Valley

Total Gross Costs - Mass Population Testing Sites

(Non-Schools)£515,688 £480,839


Number of LFTs Undertaken (including colleges -

Merthyr Tydfil)35,001 14,798

Cost per LFT - Non-schools (i.e. in relation to the

costs incurred by LAs / Health / PHW) - excludes

cost of the test equipment (assumed funded by UK

Govt)

£14.73 £32.49

Positive LFTs

Number of Positive LFTs (including colleges - Merthyr

Tydfil) 745 369

Cost per Positive LFT - non-schools (i.e. in relation

to the costs incurred by LAs / Health / PHW) -

excludes cost of the test equipment (assumed

funded by UK Govt)

£692.20 £1,303.09

62 | P a g e

Table 14: Gross costs of confirmatory PCR test and cost per confirmatory PCR test

The differences in the ‘total costs’ and ‘cost per confirmatory PCR test’ between each pilot were

primarily due to:

Confirmatory PCR testing provision being in place for 20 days for the Merthyr Tydfil pilot

compared to 16 days for the lower Cynon Valley; and

The Merthyr Tydfil pilot providing confirmatory PCR testing provision at two other

community sites for 3 days, this provision not put in place for the lower Cynon Valley.

Schools (LFD tests)

Table 15 sets out a summary of gross costs and cost per LFD for school tests undertaken.

Table 15: Summary of gross costs and cost per tests in schools


Valley

Confirmatory PCR Tests

Health Service / Public Health Wales - Staffing £10,499 £6,461

Health Service / Public Health Wales - Non-Staffing Costs

(including laboratory testing cost)£11,445 £8,016

Welsh Ambulance Service Trust £36,523 £22,475

Total costs of providing Confirmatory PCR testing £58,467 £36,952

Number of Confirmatory PCR Tests Undertaken 266 189

Cost per Confirmatory PCR Test - Non-schools £219.80 £195.52


Valley

MASS POPULATION TESTING - SCHOOLS

Total Costs - Schools Testing (Staffing Costs) £64,458 £21,843


Number of LFTs Undertaken 3,588 476

Cost per LFT - Schools (i.e. in relation to the costs

incurred by LAs) - excludes cost of the test

equipment (assumed funded by UK Govt)

£17.96 £45.89

63 | P a g e

Home Testing Lateral Flow Device Tests

Table 16 sets out a summary of gross costs and cost per Lateral Flow Device for home tests

undertaken.

Table 16: Summary of gross costs and cost per test for home tests

Conclusions:

It is evident that the staff and non-staff resources required to successfully deliver the pilot were

extensive. Whilst the tests were provided by the UK Government, the planning, infrastructure and

staff to deliver the tests in the community, schools and homes were considerable. The gross cost per

LFD test varied considerably also, as summarised in Table 17.

Table 17: Gross cost per Lateral Flow Device test in community, schools and homes

The average cost of delivery in the community and schools is very similar, but the cost of home tests

is more than double. The key factor that influenced the varying average unit costs per LFD test

undertaken in the Community, Schools and home testing was scale; the larger the targeted population

and number of LFD tests undertaken, the lower the average unit cost, i.e., in Merthyr Tydfil the

number of LFD tests undertaken in the community were 35,001, in schools 3,588 and home testing

1,096 and, in the lower Cynon Valley, 14,798, 476 and 797 respectively.

The variation in unit costs between the Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley pilots is due to

similar total costs for both pilot areas, reflecting broadly similar project planning, delivery and physical

infrastructure arrangements, and, consistent with the paragraph above, there was a significant

difference in the targeted population and the resulting number of tests undertaken. This principle also

follows through in the calculated unit costs for ‘Positive LFD tests’.

It is probable that as the testing is rolled out in the community, learning from experience, that the

project management costs will be less. In addition if routine Confirmatory PCR testing is advised for

positive cases with the LFD test, there would be no requirement for mobile PCR testing units to


Valley

HOME-TESTING

Number of LFTs Returned 1,096 797

Cost of Laboratory Test £38.00 £38.00

Total Cost per Home-Test (excludes outward and return postage

- funded by UK Govt) £38.00 £38.00

Total Cost (excludes outward and return postage - funded by

UK Govt) £41,648 £30,286

Community Testing School Testing Home Testing *

Merthyr Tydfil £14.73 £17.96 £38.00

Lower Cynon Valley £32.49 £45.89 £38.00

Average cost £20.01 £21.24 £38.00

* Home-testing - total cost of £38 relates to laboratory testing

64 | P a g e

support the programme (and would eliminate the Health Service / Public Health Wales staffing costs

and WAST costs as set out in Table 14).

Lastly, it is important to note that the cost analysis has been based on gross costs i.e. opportunity costs

(where existing resources have been repurposed to deliver the pilots) plus additional costs incurred.

Work is in the process of being finalised to determine the ‘additional costs’ to enable the appropriate

reimbursement to the organisations involved and also assess affordability against the UK

Government’s ‘£14 per test’ funding allocation.

Recommendations:

1. In order to accurately record resources used it is recommended that finance colleagues are

engaged in the early planning and implementation including staff rotas.

2. Although it was possible to repurpose some existing staff roles, for example leisure staff while

leisure centres were closed, additional staff were employed to support the pilot and this

“additionality” needs funding commitment.

3. The value of additional calls to increase engagement for home testing should be considered as

part of any further roll out, having regard to positivity rates in this population.

65 | P a g e

8. ANALYSIS OF TESTING UPTAKE AND OUTCOMES

This is a key section of the report to examine the uptake of the testing in different population groups

as well as the outcomes. This is important to assess the reach of testing and better understand

transmission in the community. This will inform future action and control measures. This section also

looks at the outcomes from a case control study undertaken during the pilot. In a case-control study

individuals who have tested positive – cases - are identified and their past exposure to putative risk

factors are compared with that of individuals who had negative test results - controls. This is compared

using odds ratios, for example, the odds of being positive if you have a certain occupation compared

with those who tested negative. Critically, this section also looks at the value of testing pilot in terms

of cases and deaths prevented along with hospitalisation and intensive care use i.e. did the pilot make

a difference?

8.1 UPTAKE OF TESTING

Merthyr Tydfil

Between 21st of November and 18th of December, 33,315 LFD tests were completed across 12 centres

in Merthyr Tydfil. The target was to reach 75% of the total Merthyr Tydfil population (i.e. 45,000

people). This was a very ambitious target, particularly as those aged under 11 years were not targeted

for the test. In 21,443 tests where a unique identifier (NHS number) was available, a total of 14,175

of those tests (66.1%) were in unique individuals. Applied to the 33,315 tests completed, this would

translate to 22,021 individuals, representing an uptake rate 49%. This would include, mostly the

resident population, but also some people working or learning in Merthyr Tydfil who may be resident

outside the area, as shown in the heat map, Figure 15.

Figure 15: Heat map of uptake of testing over time in Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley

66 | P a g e

As can be seen, the testing started in Merthyr Tydfil main testing station, attracting mostly people from the town and surrounding ‘heads of the valley’ villages. As more testing stations were opened further down the valley, attendance increased considerably. The final heat map shows the uptake increasing as the lower Cynon Valley stations are opened, stretching up to Mountain Ash. The dots outside the main geographical targeted areas, show uptake from others in surrounding areas, likely to be those working or studying in the target areas. However, it is clear that the population resident in the target areas accounted for the vast majority of uptake and opening locally accessible locations increased uptake and reach of the pilot. Of those unique individuals, 9,280 (65.5%) had only one LFD test done during that period. Of the 763 positive tests, 396 (52%) went on to have a confirmatory PCR, the vast majority (384) doing so within 3 days of the positive LFD test. Between 2nd December 2020 and 8th January 2021, 3,023 home LFD test kits were delivered to Merthyr

Tydfil postcodes, of which 1,096 were returned, a return rate of 36%.

The vast majority of the tests (33,188, 99.6%) were in asymptomatic individuals.

Testing numbers varied by day with a range of 900 – 1,900 per day with typically lower numbers at

the weekend compared to weekdays.

Figure 16 shows the distribution of tests at different sites in Merthyr Tydfil. It can be seen that the

main hub consistently has the highest number of tests, as expected but the smaller spokes were

important in extending reach and access to the wider population. This is particularly important as the

valley geography and topography means that communities can be distinct and isolated from each

other, with poor transport links and lower car ownership.

Figure 16: Number of tests conducted by day and testing site in Merthyr Tydfil

67 | P a g e

Lower Cynon Valley

Between 5th of December and 22nd of December, 14,304 LFD tests were done across eight centres in

the lower Cynon Valley. The target was to reach 75% of the total lower Cynon Valley population (i.e.

18,750 people). The lower Cynon Valley area is about 25,000 population covering Abercynon,

Mountain Ash East, Mountain Ash West, Penrhiwceiber and Aberaman South. In 10,151 tests where

a unique identifier (NHS number) was available, a total of 7,422 of those tests (73.1%) were in unique

individuals. Applied to the 14,305 tests done, this would translate to 10,457 individuals, and

representing an uptake rate of 56% of the eligible population.

Of those unique individuals, 5,702 (76.8%) had only one LFD test done during that period.

Of the 372 positive tests, 226 (61%) went on to have a confirmatory PCR, the vast majority (224) doing

so within 3 days of the positive LFD test.

Between 11th December 2020 and 8th January 2021, 1,506 home LFD test kits were delivered to the

lower Cynon Valley postcodes, of which 673 were returned (return rate of 45%).

The vast majority of the tests (14,248, 99.6%) were in asymptomatic individuals.

Testing numbers varied by day with a range of 600 – 1,300 per day with typically lower numbers at

the weekend compared to weekdays.

Figure 17 shows the distribution of tests at different sites in the lower Cynon Valley. It can be seen

that the main hub consistently has the highest number of tests, as expected but the smaller spokes

were important in extending reach and access to the wider population. Again, this is particularly

important as the valley geography and topography means that communities can be distinct and

isolated from each other, with poor transport links and lower car ownership.

Figure 17: Number of tests conducted by day and testing site in the lower Cynon Valley

68 | P a g e

8.1.2. AGE AND GENDER

In Merthyr Tydfil 18,518 tests (55.5%) were in women. The mean age of women in the tested

population was 45.3 years (SD 19.6) and men were on average 46.0 years (SD 20.4). Figure 18 shows

the age and gender of those presenting for LFD tests in Merthyr Tydfil.

Figure 18: LFD tests in Merthyr Tydfil, by Age and Gender, 21st Nov to 18th Dec 2020 (all tests,

including repeats)

Similarly, in the lower Cynon Valley, 7,880 tests (55.1%) were in women. The mean age of women in

the tested population was 44.4 years (SD 19.0) and men were on average 45.7 years (SD 20.0). Figure

19 shows the age and gender of those presenting for LFD tests in the lower Cynon Valley.

69 | P a g e

Figure 19: Number of LFD tests in the lower Cynon Valley, by Age and Gender, 5th Dec to 22nd Dec

2020

8.1.3. DEPRIVATION

Uptake by deprivation of residence was monitored and analysed using the Welsh Index of Multiple

Deprivation (WIMD) quintiles, where quintile one is the most deprived and quintile five the least. For

both Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley, there was lower uptake in the most deprived groups,

especially quintile one as can be seen in Figures 20 and 21. In the lower Cynon Valley there are no

quintiles four or five demonstrating the greater deprivation in this area.

Figure 20: Testing Rate by Merthyr Tydfil WIMD quintile 21st November to 18th December 2020

70 | P a g e

Figure 21: Testing Rate by lower Cynon Valley WIMD quintile 5th to 22nd December 2020

The socioeconomic gradient in uptake could reflect the possibility that the impact of isolating on

household income might have been a significant barrier to participation for lower income groups.

8.1.4. OCCUPATION

The opportunity to disclose occupation was offered during testing. The uptake was highest in the

public sector including teaching and education, health and social care, civil service or Local Authority

employees, along with construction and manufacturing. This may reflect the fact that more people

are employed in the public sector, by proportion in these areas that other areas of Wales and the

encouragement of the manufacturing and construction industries, due to the impact on these

essential sectors of workplace transmission. Payment during isolation in the public sector may also be

a factor. Uptake was similar in Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley as shown in Figures 22 and

23. Of note also is that personal services such as hairdressers were the lowest represented in both

areas. This may also be due to the impact of self-isolating on income.

71 | P a g e

Figure 22: Occupation of tested population, Merthyr Tydfil

Figure 23: Occupation of tested population, lower Cynon Valley

72 | P a g e

8.2. POSITIVITY

Positivity rates were analysed for the whole population and by different attributes such as

geographical areas, gender, age or occupations, allowing a greater understanding of the reservoirs of

infection and potential routes of transmission.

Positivity by area of testing station

In Merthyr Tydfil between 21st of November and 18th of December, 33,315 LFD tests were completed

across 12 centres. Of these, 763 were positive, representing a positivity rate of 2.3%. This ranged from

3.2% in Pontsticill to 0% in Trelewis testing stations, as shown in Figure 24 (below).

Figure 24: LFD Test Positivity Rate by Centre, Merthyr Tydfil, 21st November to 18th December 2020

In the lower Cynon Valley between 5th and 22nd of December, 14,304 LFD tests were completed across

eight centres. The target was to reach 75% of the total lower Cynon Valley population (i.e. 18,750

people). Of these, 372 were positive, representing a positivity rate of 2.6%. This ranged from 3.7% in

Abercwmboi to 0.7% in Mountain Ash as shown in Figure 25.

73 | P a g e

Figure 25: LFD test Positivity Rate by Centre, lower Cynon Valley, 5th to 22nd Dec 2020

It is also interesting to compare the positivity rates found in the secondary schools pilot, as shown in

section 6. The positivity rate for staff and pupils participating in the five secondary schools pilot shows

that of the 4,064 LFD tests undertaken in schools, there were 15 positive test results. This is a positivity

rate of 0.37% in school pupils and is significantly lower than that in the general community of 2.3% for

Merthyr Tydfil and 2.6% for the lower Cynon Valley. The low proportion of positive asymptomatic

cases indicates that the control measures through the Test, Trace and Protect system, together with

the control measures in place in secondary schools are highly effective.

Positivity by gender

Although uptake of testing was higher in females than males in both areas, the positivity rate was

higher in males in both areas, as shown in Table 18:

Table 18: LFD test positivity rate by Gender for Merthyr Tydfil, 21st November to 18th December and

lower Cynon Valley, 5th to 22nd December 2020.

This may indicate that males may have higher risk occupations or that they may be less compliant with

control measures e.g. social distancing, hand washing and wearing face coverings.

Area Positivity rate for females Positivity rate for males

Merthyr Tydfil 2.0% 2.6%

Lower Cynon Valley 2.3% 2.9%

74 | P a g e

Positivity by age group

When looking at rates of positivity by age group, there are similarities for both areas. The highest rates

of positivity are in those aged 20-29 years followed by 30 to 39 years, slightly higher at 4.2% in 20-29

year group in the lower Cynon Valley than Merthyr Tydfil at 3.2%. The later peak in those aged 80+

years in Merthyr that is not seen in the lower Cynon Valley. Figures 26 and 27 show the positivity by

age band in Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley.

Figure 26: LFD test positivity rates by age group, Merthyr Tydfil, November 21st to December 18th

2020

Figure 27: LFD test positivity rates by age group, lower Cynon Valley, 5th to 22nd December 2020

75 | P a g e

Positivity by deprivation

The positivity by quintile of deprivation has some variation between the two areas but the strongest

feature is the highest rate of positivity in quintile 1, individuals living in the most deprived areas with

3.1% positivity rate in Merthyr Tydfil and 2.7% positivity rate in the lower Cynon Valley. This

demonstrates that the poorest people in our communities bear an unfair burden of disease.

Figures 28 and 29 show the positivity rate by quintile of deprivation of residence for Merthyr Tydfil

and the lower Cynon Valley.

Figure 28: LFD test positivity rate by quintile deprivation, Merthyr Tydfil, November 21st to

December 18th 2020

Figure 29: LFD test positivity rate by deprivation, lower Cynon Valley, 5th to 22nd December 2020

76 | P a g e

Positivity by Occupation

Positivity rates by occupation varied between both areas, as did uptake of testing. However, some

interesting rates were seen with high positivity rates in Merthyr Tydfil seen in the sectors of transport

5.2%, hair and beauty 4%, hospitality 2.9% and manufacturing and construction 2.8%. In the lower

Cynon Valley the highest rates were seen in manufacturing and construction 5.6%, hospitality 3.8%,

health and social care 3.7%, retail 3.1% and arts and entertainment 2.9%. Both had high positivity

rates in people who did not disclose their occupations 3.2% in Merthyr Tydfil and 5.5% in the lower

Cynon Valley. These results confirm that the highest risk occupation are those where people have to

go into work and therefore come into contact with a range of people, increasing the risk of

transmission. Figures 30 and 31 show the positivity rate by occupation for each area.

Figure 30: LFD test Positivity Rates by Occupation, Merthyr Tydfil, November 21st to December 18th

2020

77 | P a g e

Figure 31: LFD Test Positivity Rates by Occupation, lower Cynon Valley, 5th to 22nd December 2020

8.3. LATERAL FLOW DEVICE TESTS

The performance of the LFD tests has been assess during their rapid development. Public Health

England, Porton Down and Oxford University confirmed that the Innova LFD test, used in this pilot, is

good, has low failure rates, high specificity and high viral antigen detection39. The purpose of this study

is set out in the aims and objectives and does not include the assessment of the test performance, but

the ability to scale up use in the community.

Table 19 considers the advantages and limitations of the LFD test compared to the PCR test as outlined in two recent articles in the British Medical Journal40 and the Lancet41.

39 Preliminary report from the joint PHE Porton Down & University of Oxford SARS-CoV-2 LFD test development and validation cell 8 November 2020. https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/media_wysiwyg/UK%20evaluation_PHE%20Porton%20Down%20%20University%20of%20Oxford_final.pdf 40 BMJ 2021;372:n208

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n208

41 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00425-6

https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/media_wysiwyg/UK%20evaluation_PHE%20Porton%20Down%20%20University%20of%20Oxford_final.pdf

https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/media_wysiwyg/UK%20evaluation_PHE%20Porton%20Down%20%20University%20of%20Oxford_final.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00425-6

78 | P a g e

Table 19: Advantages and limitations of the LFD and PCR tests for COVID-19.

LFD PCR

Advantages: Advantages:

Quick results (up to 30 minutes). This enables prompt isolation and contact tracing.

Powerful clinical test for detecting COVID-19, 100% sensitive and 96.9% specific.

Detects infectious cases and less likely to detect post-infectious people.

Samples can be used for whole genome sequencing which can identify new variants of concern and assist with outbreak investigation.

Can detect asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases who would not present for PCR testing.

Relatively cheap test as no laboratory is needed.

Can be scaled up quickly.

Limitations: Limitations:

Subject to error in sampling, particularly self-sampling (untrained) which can result in false negative results.

Tests have to be booked in advance and results take up typically 24 – 48 hours which delays contact tracing to break routes of transmission.

Less sensitive than PCR tests having more false negative results.

Can provide positive results by detecting fragments of virus up to 90 days after infection when individuals are no longer infectious. This can result in unnecessary isolation.

The infectious period is a short window to identify infectious cases, therefore repeat testing is required for maximum detection.

Expensive test due to laboratory requirements.

Does not quantify the level of virus detected to indicate the level of infectiousness.

Only accessible to symptomatic individuals and therefore does not identify asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic but infectious cases.

Ultimately, any test is a snapshot in time and should not give assurance outside of that moment. The

main advantage of the LFD test is that is provides rapid results to inform isolation and contact tracing,

thereby breaking routes of transmission very quickly. The PCR test takes days to report and may

therefore not offer the same opportunity for rapid interruption of transmission.

Indeed, the fact that PCR could detect virus after the infectious period has led to well-reasoned

conclusions that it is not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test

as it incurs a net loss to the health, social, and economic wellbeing of communities through post-

infectious individuals testing positive and needing to isolate for 10 days (Mina et al, 2021).

In conclusion, in the context of community testing to identify asymptomatic individuals who are

infectious, the LFD test has the advantage that it is quick, accessible and can be deployed at scale,

allowing the introduction of rapid control measures to disrupt the chain of transmission at the earliest

opportunity, thus reducing prevalence.

Recommendations:

1. Additional support to low income households to isolate is imperative for greater uptake and

compliance.

79 | P a g e

2. Targeting testing of low uptake occupations with higher positivity rates, including tailored financial

incentives should be considered to increase uptake in these groups that have the potential to

transmit COVID-19 to larger client base.

8.4. ESTIMATED CASES, HOSPITALISATIONS AND DEATHS PREVENTED IN MERTHYR TYDFIL

We assessed the impact of the whole area testing pilot that took place in Merthyr Tydfil Local

Authority between 21st November 2020 and 20th December 2020 by estimating the number of cases

prevented using the reproduction number (Rt) in Merthyr Tydfil at the time and applying a series of

assumptions on the natural history of the infection and the performance of the test, and then applying

these estimates to a time-lagged regression model to estimate the number of hospitalisations, ICU

admissions and deaths prevented. We also performed sensitivity analysis on some parameters that

underlies some of the assumptions of the analysis and derived estimates from likely worst-case and

best-case scenarios.

Method

Assumptions

The analysis presented carry the following assumptions.

1. Infectability of asymptomatic cases are 58% of symptomatic cases42.

2. The number of infections created by an infectious person is determined by the Rt value on the

day of their Lateral Flow positive test result.

3. An infectious person became infectious 5 days before the Lateral Flow positive test result and

up to 9 days after. Only infections taking place after the Lateral Flow positive test are

considered preventable.

4. The daily count of new infections arising from infectious persons is a fixed Log-normal

distribution with a median of 5 days43.

5. All infected persons not exhibiting symptoms will not self-isolate, therefore will contribute to

subsequent infections.

6. Infected persons exhibiting symptoms will self-isolate, but will also contribute to secondary

transmission (each symptomatic case will contribute 0.2 secondary cases in contacts).

7. The proportion of positive cases that will develop symptoms remains constant (0.44).

8. All cases reported asymptomatic are truly asymptomatic.

9. All positive Lateral Flow tests with confirmatory PCR test are true positives.

10. Of the positive LF tests without confirmatory PCR test, a fixed proportion will be true positives

(0.89)

42 Byambasuren, O., Cardona, M., Bell, K., Clark, J., McLaws, M.-L., & Glasziou, P. (2020). Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Official Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada, 5(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi-2020-0030 43 McAloon, C., Collins, Á., Hunt, K., Barber, A., Byrne, A. W., Butler, F., Casey, M., Griffin, J., Lane, E., McEvoy, D., Wall, P., Green, M., O’Grady, L., & More, S. J. (2020). Incubation period of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research. BMJ Open, 10(8), e039652. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039652

80 | P a g e

11. All infected persons are equality infectious irrespective of age, gender, demographic variables,

etc.

1. Estimates of cases prevented

All lateral flow tests (LFD) performed at the 14 participating testing centres in Merthyr Tydfil LA during

the testing period were counted for each day. From this, the number of Lateral Flow test positives that

were confirmed by PCR test were counted. From this number, the number of true positives were

estimated. Firstly we identified all LFD positives with a confirmatory PCR test result (classified as true

positives). Secondly, we estimated the number of true positives in those who did not have a

confirmatory PCR test from the positive predictive value (PPV) of the Lateral Flow test, estimated to

be 0.89.

A proportion of asymptomatic cases will go on to develop COVID-19 symptoms. The number expected

to remain asymptomatic was estimated by scaling the number of true positives by the proportion of

asymptomatic cases that did not reported having symptoms when interviewed coincidentally as part

of a case-control study that took place during the testing pilot (estimated to be 0.56). Asymptomatic

infections are assumed to not self-isolate and therefore will contribute fully to the next generation of

infections. A small proportion of secondary infections (0.2) were assumed for symptomatic cases,

resulting from infectious contact made prior to onset of symptoms or as a failure of self-isolation. The

sum of these two count constitutes the initial set of cases identified though the testing pilot but not

directly prevented (also referred to as 0th generation infections). The process for obtaining this count

is visualised in the flowchart in Figure 32 (below).

81 | P a g e

Figure 32: Flowchart of process for estimating number of cases detected by mass testing that would

not otherwise be detected.

From the initial set of cases, the 1st generation infections that would have occurred from these cases

is estimated by multiplying by the reproduction number (Rt - mean and 95% CI) for that day by the

number true positive LFD cases (Figure 33). A scaling factor of 0.58 is also applied to take into account

the relative reduction of infectability of asymptomatic cases compared to symptomatic cases 42. The

82 | P a g e

daily reproduction number Rt was estimated using the “EpiEstim” R package44 based on actual PCR-

tested case counts in Merthyr Tydfil LA area.

Figure 33: Estimated Rt in Merthyr Tydfil over the testing period

The number of subsequent (2nd and higher generation) infections were estimated by iteratively

multiplying the estimated Rt by the estimated number of prevented infections from the previous day,

each time scaling the number of cases from the previous generation by the proportions of

asymptomatic and symptomatic-infectious cases, and scaling the asymptomatic portion by the relative

infectability of asymptomatic cases, as done for the 0th generation.

The number of infections estimated prevented for a given day is the sum of the 1st generation and

2nd and higher generation infections. 0th generation infection are excluded as they occurred before

the LF test and therefore cannot be considered prevented.

The number of infections estimated for a given day is then distributed over an infection window of 14

days, which has a log-normal distribution (𝜇=1.63, 𝜎=0.5), with a median of 5 days. The parameters

for this distribution were taken from the meta-analysis of McAloon et al. (2020)43. For 1st generation

infections (infections arising direct from the LF positive cases) the infectious period is assumed to be

centred around the LF test date, to take into account the likely delay between the date of infection

and the date of the LF test. Only the infectious period after the LF test date is considered as any new

infections generated before the LF test would not have been prevented. For 2nd and higher

generation infections, the whole infection window is considered and the start of the infection window

is the date the infection is seeded. A flowchart depicting this process is shown in Figure 34.

44 Cori, A., Ferguson, N. M., Fraser, C., & Cauchemez, S. (2013). A new framework and software to estimate time-varying reproduction numbers during epidemics. American Journal of Epidemiology, 178(9), 1505–1512. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt133

83 | P a g e

Figure 34: Flowchart of process for estimating number of cases prevented, and other healthcare outcomes. This process is followed iteratively for each day in the testing period.

The proportion of asymptomatic cases was obtained from case-control study undertaken at the same

time as the mass testing, from 198 LF positive results, 87 (44%) reported symptoms when followed

up.

84 | P a g e

The proportion of symptomatic cases that contribute to new infections was estimated from contact

tracing data (restricted to the period of the mass testing exercise and to the Merthyr Tydfil LA area).

The contacts for all cases that reported symptoms were cross referenced to identify those that also

have a PCR-confirmed positive test result. The proportion of those in contact with positive test results

was 0.2.

2. Estimates of hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths prevented

The estimated number of cases prevented were further used to predict three healthcare outcomes:

hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths. A time-lagged log-linear regression model was built on

case data in the Merthyr Tydfil LA. Separate models were built for each healthcare outcome with

multiple lagged case counts treated as the predictor variables and the burden measure as the outcome

measure. Hospitalisation data were restricted to those where a positive PCR test was obtained no later

than 2 days after admission. This rules out likely nosocomial infections, as opposed to those that are

community-acquired. All data were log transformed and smoothed with a LOESS filter (span = 0.2).

Models are built from time-lagged case counts with delays of 12-50, 24-50 and 30-50 days for

hospitalisations, ICU admissions and death, respectively. These lag ranges were determined to be

optimal by testing multiple lag windows of 1-50 days and comparing the AIC/BIC values.

The estimated number of cases prevented computed in the previous section were then fed into the

model to predict daily counts of hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths prevented.

3. Sensitivity analysis

Some of the proportions underlying the assumptions of the analysis have a high degree of uncertainty.

Three parameters of concern were highlighted for sensitivity analysis and produce worst-case and

best-case scenarios for the number of cases prevented and associated healthcare outcomes (worst

case being highest number of cases prevented). All these parameters depend on to categorisation of

symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. There are nuances in the definitional boundary between

symptomatic and asymptomatic infection across studies45, including separate categorisations of

presymptomatic and paucisymptomatic cases which were not made in this analysis. These nuances

make this set of parameters particularly challenging to quantify. The parameters of concern are:

1. The proportion of asymptomatic cases that become symptomatic (assumption 7).

This value of 0.44 was obtained from the follow up case-control study undertaken at the same time

as the mass testing. This estimate is chosen due to its highly specific to the geography and demography

of the mass testing sample. However, this is quite a high estimate compared to other estimates in the

literature. In the systematic review of Oran and Topol (2021) 46, about three quarters of asymptomatic

positive cases, never go on to develop symptoms. We therefore test against a lower best-case

estimate of 0.25.

2. The proportion of symptomatic cases who contribute to further transmission (assumption 6).

This value of 0.2 was obtained from contact tracing data in the Merthyr Tydfil LA, cross referencing

contacts and identifying which contacts originate from symptomatic positive cases. Again, this is the

chosen estimate for the main analysis as it is highly specific to the geography and demography of the

45 Meyerowitz, E. A., Richterman, A., Bogoch, I. I., Low, N., & Cevik, M. (2020). Towards an accurate and systematic characterisation of persistently asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30837-9 46 Oran, D. P., & Topol, E. J. (2021). The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/m20-6976

85 | P a g e

mass testing sample. However, incompleteness in contact reporting means this value is likely to be

under-estimated. A cross-sectional survey in the UK by Smith et al. (2020) 47 indicate the proportion

of symptomatic cases who fail to self-isolate is much higher (0.75). We therefore use this as a best-

case alternative for this parameter.

3. The relative infectability of asymptomatic cases compared to symptomatic cases (assumption 1).

The value of 0.58 was obtained from the meta-analysis of Byambasuren et al. (2020)42. However, this

estimate has very large confidence intervals (0.34, 0.99, with the upper bound treating the two groups

as virtually equal in infectability. We do not have robust way of estimating this parameter in the mass

testing sample, so we use the central estimate from this meta-analysis as the main parameter and the

bounds of the confidence interval from this meta-analysis as best-case and worst-case estimates.

Results

1. Estimates of cases prevented

A total of 33,822 LF tests were performed in Merthyr Tydfil LA. 712 were positive by LFD, of which 680

were estimated to be true positives, of which 381 were estimated to not subsequently develop

symptoms and contribute to secondary infections. In addition, an estimated 60 of those developing

symptoms would contribute to secondary infections. Figure 35 shows the daily count of these

numbers over the testing period.

Figure 35: Positive lateral flow test results from community testing pilot in Merthyr Tydfil, with estimates for true positives and proportion remaining asymptomatic. Note that missing data in the weekend of 11th to 13th December is due to temporary suspension of the mass testing on these dates.

Including 1st and higher generation infections, a total of, a total of 353 (306, 409) infections are

estimated to have been prevented in the period from 21st November 2020 to 3rd January 2021. This

represents 12.2% (10.6%, 14.1%) of the actual case count (2,900), an effective reduction of 10.9% from

47 Smith, L. E., Amlȏt, R., Lambert, H., Oliver, I., Robin, C., Yardley, L., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). Factors associated with adherence to self-isolation and lockdown measures in the UK: a cross-sectional survey. Public Health, 187, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.07.024

86 | P a g e

the would-be case count without mass testing (3,253). This also represents a reduction in mean daily

incidence rate of 13.6 (11.8, 15.8) cases per 100,000 per day (actual mean daily incidence rate was

112 cases per 100,000 per day). This is the sum of 165 (153, 179) estimated 1st generation infections

and 188 (153, 230) estimated 2nd and higher generation infections (see Table 20).

Table 20: Estimated cases prevented

Description n upper CI lower CI

Actual case count 2900

LF test performed during mass testing 48834

- of which were in the Merthyr Tydfil LA 33822

- of which were asymptomatic and tested positive 712

– of which had a confirmatory PCR test result 538

– of which had no confirmatory PCR test 174

— of which were estimated to be true positives from PPV 155

- of which are true positives (PCR-confirmed + estimated from PPV) 680

– of which were estimated to remain asymptomatic 381

– of which were estimated to become symptomatic 299

— of which were estimated to still contribute to infections 60

direct cases (0th generation infections) prevented 441

1st generation infections prevented 165 179 153

2nd and higher generation infections prevented 188 230 153

Total estimated number of prevented cases 353 409 306

Figure 36 shows the cases counts in Merthyr Tydfil with and without those estimated prevented by

the mass testing, over the course of the mass testing and the following 14 days.

Figure 36: Cases counts with and without estimated prevented by mass testing

87 | P a g e

2. Estimates of hospitalisation, ICU admissions and deaths prevented

The model estimates, from the cases prevented during the mass testing, a total of 24 (16, 36)

hospitalisations, 5 (3, 6) ICU admissions and 14 (11, 19) deaths were prevented in the period between

21st November 2020 and 10th February 2021. These represent reductions of 6.65%, 11.4% and 8.31%

of the actual hospitalisation, ICU admissions and deaths, respectively. The estimated time course of

these three outcomes are shown in Figure 37.

Figure 37: Estimates of hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths prevented from cases prevented

by mass testing

3. Sensitivity analysis

Results of sensitivity analysis are shown in Table 21. The first two parameters tested (proportion of

asymptomatic cases that become symptomatic and proportion of symptomatic cases who contribute

to further transmission) produced small relative sensitivity values (magnitude below 1). The number

of cases prevented when adjusting these values to less conservative estimates are 415 and 629,

respectively (representing increases of 18% and 78% of the original estimate). However, sensitivity to

the relative infectability of asymptomatic cases was very large (greater than 2). The number of

estimated cases prevented in the less conservative scenario is 1041 (an increase of 195%). The model

is therefore particularly sensitive to this parameter and so uncertainly in its estimation should be

carefully considered when evaluating estimates produced by this model.

88 | P a g e

Table 21: Results of sensitivity analysis

Parameter

changed

Original

parameter

New

parameter

Absolute

parameter

change

Relative

Parameter

change

New

output

Absolute

output

change

Relative

output

change

Absolute

sensitivity

Relative

sensitivity

Proportion of

symptomatic

cases who

become

symptomatic

0.439 0.250 -0.189 -0.431 415 62 0.176 -327 -0.407

Proportion of

symptomatic

cases who

contribute to

further

transmission

0.201 0.751 0.550 2.735 629 276 0.782 502 0.286

Relative

infectability of

asymptomatic

cases, compared

to symptomatic

cases

0.580 0.990 0.410 0.707 1041 688 1.949 1678 2.757

Table 22 shows the estimated cases prevented for different scenarios tests with alternative worst-

case and best-case parametrisations, the worst-case scenario being 157 (139, 176) cases prevented,

which is 44% of the original estimate and 5% of the actual case count. The best-case scenario is 2252

(1712, 2986) cases prevented, which is 638% of the original estimate and 77% of the actual case count.

Corresponding healthcare burdens prevented for the best-case scenario are 65 (48, 91)

hospitalisations, 9 (7, 12) ICU admissions and 32 (25, 41) deaths. These represent reductions of 18.2%,

22.5% and 18.4% of the actual hospitalisation, ICU admissions and deaths, respectively.

Table 22: Total estimated cases prevented and associated healthcare outcomes for original, worst-case and best-case scenarios

Cases Hospitalisations ICU admissions Deaths

Scenario n Lower Upper n Lower Upper n Lower Upper n Lower Upper

Original 353 306 409 24 16 36 5 3 6 14 11 19

Worst-case 157 139 176 12 8 20 3 2 4 9 7 12

Best-case 2252 1712 2986 65 48 91 9 7 12 32 25 41

Conclusions:

As a result of the whole area testing pilot in Merthyr Tydfil, cases (both asymptomatic and

symptomatic), hospitalisations and deaths, that would have otherwise occurred, were prevented.

When taking into account multiple generations of infections that would have occurred in the

community, over one tenth of cases that would have occurred over a 6 week period were prevented.

This forecast translates into a predicted reduction of 6-12% in burden on the healthcare system. These

results were obtained for a conservative, but probable scenario. However, in a less-conservative, best-

89 | P a g e

case scenario, the number of prevented cases could be as much as three quarters of the actual case

count, and a reduction of 18-23% in burden on the healthcare system.

It is likely that the whole area testing pilot in Merthyr Tydfil had an immediate impact on the level of

SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the community, and would likely have contributed to the subsequent decline

in COVID-19 case rates which occurred following the testing pilot and the introduction of the national

lockdown, implemented on 19th December.

Recommendations:

Further analysis of the costs avoided by the mass testing, in terms of cost per hospitalisations or ICU

admission, relative to the cost of the mass testing exercise will provide further insights into the

benefits of LF mass testing from a health economics perspective.

8.5 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF MERTHYR TYDFIL MASS TESTING

Summary:

A cost effectiveness analysis of the mass testing programme was carried out in Merthyr Tydfil. This

involved attaching cost and QALY estimates to the modelled cases, hospital admissions, critical care

admissions, and deaths prevented or postponed by the programme, and comparing these with the

intervention costs of the programme. Overall the programme was highly cost effective with an

estimated incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £2,292 per QALY.

Methods:

Standard cost effectiveness analysis (sometimes called cost utility analysis) methods were used.48

Appendix49 shows more detail of cost and QALY estimates. There have been several attempts to attach

costs to COVID-19 outcomes.50 A ‘bottom up’ method was used, with Wales-specific medical costs and

intervention costs collected as part of the mass testing pilot. The cases, hospital admissions and deaths

were multiplied by estimated costs and QALYs lost. The QALY losses from COVID-19 cases included

cases, deaths, hospital admissions and a conservative (low) estimate of the lost QALYs from long

COVID, assuming that 10% of cases have COVID-19 symptoms for 12 weeks or longer.

The programme costs for the mass testing pilot in Merthyr Tydfil were estimated as £515,688. Costs

were measured in GBP, at 2020 prices. QALYs lost from COVID-19 deaths were discounted at 1.5% per

annum in line with UK Treasury Green Book. Other costs and QALYs were not discounted as they were

assumed to occur within-year. Table shows the estimated outcomes and unit costs and QALYs for

each outcome. No costs were assumed for cases that do not end in hospital or dying.

48 Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford university press; 2015 Sep 25. 49 Detailed methods and costs (see appendices) 50 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907616/s0650-

direct-indirect-impacts-covid-19-excess-deaths-morbidity-sage-48.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907616/s0650-direct-indirect-impacts-covid-19-excess-deaths-morbidity-sage-48.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907616/s0650-direct-indirect-impacts-covid-19-excess-deaths-morbidity-sage-48.pdf

90 | P a g e

Table 23: Outcomes, QALYs and costs per unit.

Outcome Mid estimate

Low estimate

High estimate

QALYs lost per case

Costs per case (£)

Cases prevented 353 306 409 0.0159 -

Hospital cases prevented 24 16 36 0.0113 7,085

ICU cases prevented 5 3 6 0.0346 22,198

Deaths prevented 14 11 19 6.78 232

Results

The programme was highly likely to be cost effective, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of

£2,292 per QALY gained (lower confidence interval: £905, upper confidence interval: £4,179). Net

monetary benefit for the intervention, which is cost savings plus the value of QALYs gained (valuing

discounted QALYs at UK Treasury £60,000) was £5.8million (£4.4m – £8.0m). See Table 24.

The majority of benefits (87%) are through the discounted QALYs lost and costs of people dying from

COVID-19 (see Table 25). As a sensitivity analysis, we varied the QALYs lost from early deaths down

from 6.78 down to 5 QALYs, but the net monetary benefits were still large at £4.3million. We also had

a sensitivity analysis where we varied the value of QALYs down from £60,000 to £30,000 but the net

monetary benefit was still positive at £2.8million. Using a 3.5% discount rate for health benefits (as

recommended by NICE) instead of UK Treasury 1.5% slightly decreased the net monetary benefit from

£5.8million to £5.4million.

Table 24: Estimated QALYs gained, cost savings, incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit of mass testing programme in Merthyr Tydfil, for mid, high and low estimate of effectiveness.

mid low high

QALYs gained 101 80 136

Net costs (£) 231,420 333,188 123,046

ICER (Incremental cost effectiveness ratio) cost per QALY gained (£) 2,292 4,179 905

Net monetary benefit (valuing QALYs at £60,000) (£) 5,826,889 4,450,361 8,032,830

Sensitivity analysis

Net monetary benefit - worst case model parameters (£) 3,463,211 2,576,674 4,788,774

Net monetary benefit - best case model parameters (£) 15,379,083 11,834,597 20,016,693

Net monetary benefit with lower QALY loss for COVID-19 deaths (£) 4,331,689 3,275,561 6,003,630

Net monetary benefit valuing QALYs at £30,000 instead of £60,0000 (£) 2,797,735 2,058,586 3,954,892

Net monetary benefit (3.5% discount rate instead of 1.5%) 5,364,889 4,087,361 7,405,830

91 | P a g e

Table 25. QALYs gained and cost savings for mid, low and high scenarios of mass testing intervention in Merthyr Tydfil. Negative cost savings indicate net costs.

QALYs gained Cost savings (£)

mid low high mid low high

Cases 6 5 6 - - -

Hospital cases 0 0 0 311,725 226,709 446,333

ICU cases 0 0 0 155,384 110,989 199,780

Deaths 95 75 129 5,336 3,944 6,728

Programme costs -515,688 -515,688 -515,688

Total 101 80 136 - 43,243 - 174,046 137,153

Conclusions:

The intervention was very cost effective with a central estimate of £2,292 per QALY gained. This

compares favourably with cost effectiveness thresholds such as the quoted National Institute for

Health and Care Excellence (NICE’s) threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained, or the health production

cost for the NHS in England, which is said to be around £15,000 per QALY gained.51 Even with

pessimistic assumptions, the intervention is likely to be cost effective with a worst case scenario of

£5,678 (£3,341 - £8,288 per QALY). We have been quite conservative and not included costs of non-

hospital cases or long COVID cases, and the QALY losses from long COVID cases are also quite

conservative. ICERs tell us about the ratio of benefits which might be expected to scale if the

intervention was introduced somewhere else; we also estimated net monetary benefit which tells us

about the absolute level of benefits we expect for this particular programme. The central estimate of

net monetary benefit was £5.8 million which means a benefit:cost ratio of around 11 for the £516,000

that the programme cost, or a return on investment of around £10.30 per £1 spent. This is in line with

the finding that public health interventions often have a high return on investment.52

The true costs and QALYs lost from COVID-19 are likely to be higher than these estimates as they do

not include post-hospital rehab, the likely full implications of multi organ damage, productivity or

informal care costs. The indirect opportunity costs for people whose NHS treatment is delayed

because of treating COVID-19 patients is not included. There are likely to be lots of complex dynamic

effects that are difficult to predict. Even for the costs and QALYs we have included, there is likely to

be a large degree of uncertainty. The costs and QALYs are estimated for the population as a whole,

however we know that direct COVID-19 harms are highly likely to be experienced more by people of

low socioeconomic position, but that indirect harms of the COVID-19 response are also likely to be

unequally distributed as well.

There are other onward costs of the COVID-19 system that are not included in this such as the costs

of contact tracing, but these would fall both onto the intervention costs side, and on the cost savings

51 Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S, Culyer AJ. Causes for concern: is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients? 52 Masters R, Anwar E, Collins B, Cookson R, Capewell S. Return on investment of public health interventions: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017 Aug 1;71(8):827-34.

92 | P a g e

side of any cost effectiveness equation, because preventing cases would reduce the need for future

contact tracing.

The productivity losses from COVID-19 cases, hospital and deaths, or productivity losses from

individuals self-isolating are not included. It is important to note that these interventions only work

because individuals choose to reduce their contacts after testing positive for the virus. The informal

care costs of people caring for loved ones who have COVID-19 are not included. If we included

estimates for these the benefits would likely be greater and the intervention would be more cost

effective. The equity impacts in the calculation of costs and benefits are not included; Merthyr Tydfil

has a deprived population so adding an additional weighting for equity would likely mean that the

benefits would be greater,53 however it may also mean that people are exposed to more competing

risks of morbidity and mortality. The benefits to individuals in Merthyr Tydfil from employment in

supporting the mass testing programme are not included.

A probabilistic sensitivity analysis or vary the economic parameters except in one-way sensitivity

analyses was not carried out; so the range of results is influenced only by the upper and lower

estimates of the epidemiological modelling.

This study has demonstrated that mass testing is likely to be cost effective.

Recommendations:

1. Further analysis of the costs avoided by the mass testing, in terms of cost per hospitalisations

or ICU admission, relative to the cost of the mass testing exercise will provide further insights

into the benefits of LFD mass testing from a health economics perspective.

2. It will be useful to compare with economic evaluation of other mass testing pilots such as in

Liverpool and other parts of the world.

3. Further analysis could look at the threshold of community prevalence at which mass testing

becomes cost-effective.

8.6. WASTE WATER TESTING


The frequent monitoring of coronavirus levels at wastewater treatment plants can offer a signal of the

infection rate in the community and provide an early sign that coronavirus is present54. Wastewater

testing was commissioned to inform the selection of Asymptomatic Test Sites and to provide evidence

of changes in the infection rate in various parts of the county over the period of the pilot. The project

team carried out wastewater sampling and analysis to monitor SARS-CoV-2 in the Merthyr Tydfil

Borough sewerage system during the testing period and for a short time afterwards (30th November

2020 – 8th January 2021).

Methods used:

53 Collins BJ, Griffin S, Asaria M, Capewell S, Love-Koh J, Kypridemos C, Pearson-Stuttard J, O'Flaherty M, Cookson R. How Do We Include Health Inequality Impacts in Economic Analysis of Policy Options? 54 Welsh Government https://gov.wales/pilot-programme-measure-coronavirus-prevalence-waste-water-treatment-plants

93 | P a g e

The Welsh Government had already commissioned wastewater testing from sites around Wales to

assess the spread of coronavirus.

To inform the Merthyr pilot, the Welsh Government brought together partners involved the existing

wastewater testing project: Bangor University, Cardiff University, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW)

and the Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC). Bangor University and the JBC had previously been involved in

wastewater testing in support of the Liverpool pilot of community testing. Further detailed planning

meetings with DCWW involved analysis of GIS and sewerage network maps to identify appropriate

sampling points based on LSOAs across the Merthyr Tydfil Borough.

Partners collaborated to select seven network points (Figure 38) as the key daily sampling sites.

DCWW undertook on-the-ground inspection and risk assessment to confirm the suitability of the sites.

Four of the seven wastewater network sampling sites were in Merthyr Tydfil town areas, and were

selected to take into account areas of economic deprivation (e.g. Pant, Galon Uchaf and Gellideg) and

the Prince Charles Hospital.

Figure 38: Locations of sampling sites (green circles) mapped onto Merthyr Tydfil Borough LSOAs,

indicating relative levels of deprivation (see key)

The two other network sampling sites were:

a site down the valley (Abercanaid) providing an ‘integrated’ sample of wastewater coming from Merthyr Tydfil town; and

a site sampling wastewater exclusively from Aberfan. In addition, Cilfynydd wastewater treatment works (WwTW), which takes all of Merthyr Tydfil Borough’s wastewater, was selected for daily sampling.

Partners tried, as far as possible, to identify sampling sites that minimised disruption, but some of the sites required street works and/or traffic management controls.

DCWW appointed contractors to undertake the wastewater sampling.

94 | P a g e

The costs of wastewater testing were met by Welsh Government. Costs included:

Wastewater sampling: approx £2,500/week;

Consumables (reagents, robotics, materials, etc.) cost per sample, ca. £56. Thus, processing

daily samples from 7 sites (49 samples x £56), £2,800/week; and

Staff, analysis and indirect costs, £4,900/week.

Total approx. £10,400/week

Total cost for 6 weeks approx. £62,400


There needs to be a long lead in with regard to planning to enable sampling sites to be

identified, traffic management arrangements made, sampling plans and analysis.

The capacity and timing of analysis and the interpretation of results needs to be timely in order

to inform sampling locations.

What went well?

Partners were approached at short notice and reacted very positively to the request, collaborating

effectively to identify and assess suitable sampling sites, making arrangements for sampling and the

analysing samples.

The co-ordination of sampling (DCWW) and testing (Cardiff University) teams worked well in terms of

delivery of samples and processing/analysis through the period of the Pilot, particularly given the

challenges around resources available and with working through December and the Christmas period.

The results showed that although differences were evident in the levels of SARS-CoV-2 from the

wastewater network sampling sites, indicating variation in COVID-19 positive cases in sub-populations

living in different areas of the Merthyr Tydfil Borough community (Figure 38), the differences were

not significant.

Single, daily grab samples from Merthyr Tydfil and Aberfan wastewater network sites representing

relatively low populations (range ca. 2,500-3,600) produced highly variable stochastic data (not

shown), which so far has not been tractable with the various modelling approaches used (see below).

However, when the data were averaged on a 7-day basis, all of the sites showed a trend of increasing

wastewater virus signal through the period of the community testing, with a slight decrease post-

Christmas (Figure 39A).

95 | P a g e

Figure 39: SARS-CoV-2 signal in wastewater from Merthyr Tydfil Borough sampling sites during

community COVID-19 testing period. (A) Weekly averaged SARS-CoV-2 at seven sampling sites (see

Figure 38) across the Borough; (B) box-whisker plot comparing between site SARS-CoV-2 levels

during the sampling period.


The Pilot highlighted for the first time a number of issues linked to the inherent variability of

wastewater SARS-CoV-2 signal. It is now evident that the data are highly variable in wastewater

networks serving relatively small populations (<10,000) by comparison with larger towns and cities

(>100,000), producing spikes in the daily data and making results more difficult to interpret.

For example, in this pilot the total population of Merthyr Tydfil Borough (ca. 62,000) is about the size

of the population associated with the smallest wastewater network sub-catchment that was sampled

in the Liverpool pilot. Relatively small wastewater sub-catchments, such as those in Merthyr Tydfil,

would be better sampled, by higher frequency grab sampling. Composite sampling could also be

considered in some cases, but is likely to be more difficult from an operational perspective.

Conversely, in areas with larger populations, wastewater network sampling would potentially be

easier, because of the increased availability of more convenient sampling sites (e.g. associated with

pumping stations and Combined Sewer Overflows), and other resources.

Selection and assessment of sampling sites, appointment, training and instruction of a contractor all

took time. Sampling at the majority of sites began 10 working days after assistance was requested,

although sooner at some. Therefore, wastewater data were not available to inform the selection of

Asymptomatic Test Sites.

This matter could be addressed by pro-actively identifying sub catchment sampling sites in locations

where community testing may be deployed in future. Partners would be willing to collaborate to

identify suitable sites if Welsh Government were to commission a study. There would a cost for this

work.

The processing of wastewater samples and analysis to provide results required more time than

originally anticipated. This meant that data were not available in near enough real time during

December to help guide community testing. The pipeline for processing and analysis at Cardiff

96 | P a g e

University is now more automated and faster. Therefore, it is anticipated that in future wastewater

monitoring would be of greater utility during the testing and, potentially, in a pre-testing period.

Conclusions:

Partners had been keen to support the use of waste water sampling to inform community testing

undertaken during the pilot. The results of the waste water sampling were not available at the time

of the pilot to inform the location of sampling. However, the results did show a potential to provide

information about the relative burden of COVID-19 infection and may benefit from further research.

Compared with that of larger towns and cities (>100,000), data were found to be highly variable in

wastewater networks serving relatively small populations (<10,000), producing spikes in the daily data

and making results more difficult to interpret. The results confirmed that wastewater testing has

potential to provide information about the prevalence of COVID-19 to inform the selection of

Asymptomatic Test Sites. Lead times of several days are necessary to identify and assess suitable

sampling sites, regular sampling, processing and analysis. In addition, reporting procedures need to

be more streamlined and nearer real time for wastewater data to help inform testing strategies.

Recommendations:

1. Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in the wastewater network provides additional independent and useful

information regarding the presence of the virus in the community, which is independent of whole

area testing.

2. Timely planning meeting(s) with appropriate representation from all team partners (not only

those primarily involved in wastewater monitoring), reasonably in advance of start of whole area

testing, are essential to focus on sampling site identification – taking into account factors such as

network configuration, relative ease of access (manholes, CSOs, pumping stations, wastewater

treatment works, etc.), special sites (e.g. hospitals, prisons, large businesses/schools/institutions,

etc.).

3. Number of sampling sites, sampling frequency and types of sample (grab/composite) need to be

calibrated and ensured suitable for area/population.

4. Maintain coordination and communication between all team members before, during and after

the whole area testing window.

5. Ensure dedicated wastewater monitoring operations team pipeline from sampling through sample

processing and analysis to allow results to be obtained and shared in as close to real time as

possible; i.e. initial results within 4-5 days of sampling.

6. Confirmed results should be used for higher level analysis, e.g. contextualised and correlated

wherever possible with COVID-19 testing and other appropriate public health metrics for the

area/population undergoing testing.

7. Continued development of methodologies for wastewater sampling, and processing and analysis

of samples suitable for the range of communities across Wales; i.e. urban (large, high-density

populations, excellent wastewater network connectivity), peri-urban (medium-sized, variable

density populations, good wastewater network connectivity) and rural (relatively small, low

density populations, variable or poor wastewater network connectivity) communities.

97 | P a g e

9. COMMUNICATION AND ENGAGEMENT

9.1. MERTHYR TYDFIL


A comprehensive communications and engagement plan was an essential component of the planning

process and fundamental to the success of Whole Area Testing. A campaign strategy11 outlined the

ways in which Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council would engage with residents and partner

organisations to encourage uptake of the mass testing programme. Key messages:

1. Testing is free and available to everyone 2. It is both safe and convenient to get tested 3. Taking a test will help prevent the spread of COVID-19 4. The programme's success depends on a community-wide effort

In terms of the uptake required, 30% was considered too low, 50% the minimum and 80% a good, but a high (possibly unrealistic) target.

The campaign Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are:

- 10,000 accumulated instances of digital engagement (to include: likes/equivalent,

shares/equivalent, comments, reach)

- Minimum 1 feature in 5 regional publications (To include: local news channels, regional

papers/their websites)

Methods used:

The campaign reflected the efforts of other regional testing pilots (such as those in Liverpool). It was

be divided into 2 phases: PHASE 1: Announcement; PHASE 2: Testing is live.

Primary - An accessible, emotive, digital-first approach (to include: some paid advertisement,

influencer endorsement and appropriate use of social networking platforms)

Secondary - Offline engagement (including traditional media: printed literature, offline advertising,

etc.)

Assets used:

Marketing

Community Leaders and influencers

Further assets were developed for sharing through Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, in the

form of three stories, the purpose of which were to counter potential obstacles to testing

which have been identified through other pilots.

How testing works

Incentives – This was considered later in the process as the testing uptake was high. The

reason it was focussed on it towards the ends of the process was to try to engage more with

the 16-24 year olds. This was done by asking people to share and like our posts on social media

with the lucky winner being offered a family ticket for a Swansea City and Cardiff City Football

game.

98 | P a g e


There were no major concerns as such just a few observations.

What went well?

In the early planning process Liverpool Communications Team were contacted to get their

views on their experiences and what they would have done differently. This assisted

massively with the communication strategy, especially with a short leading time before

launching the programme.

Good Relationships with partners, including Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and

CTMUHB, was key to the delivery of effective communication and engagement. Daily touch

point meetings via ‘Teams’ with WG, Central Government, the Health Board and the Military

provided a good network of support and resources.

The strong relationship with the Military from the outset proved highly beneficial in relation

to the overall delivery of the programme. These clear channels of communications,

particularly around the initial planning, gave an early insight to how the programme would

operate.


More leading time to plan the communications strategy before the start of the programme

More resources to deliver the programme

As the lead organisation, having more control over the communications being developed by

other partners.

Conclusions:

All in all the communication and engagement strategy did achieve the required outcomes of getting a

high level of the population tested. Throughout the testing programme, a close watch was kept via

social media channels on what the public were saying and their experience of the testing centre. As a

result of this, there was the continual ability to adapt the communication strategy to keep people

updated and responding to their queries and concerns.

With all the media interest at the start of the pilot and those eager to attend the testing, initially there

was no need to try hard to encourage people to get tested. After this initial rush, things slowed down

and it was clear that the 16-24 year olds, self-employed people and those working, who did not want

to self-isolate were reluctant to get tested.

At this point a different approach was required to encourage these groups to get tested was needed.

To do this large employers were engaged with to get their workforces fast-tracked and tested in large

groups at test centres close to their place of work. Work was also undertaken with local influencers to

assist with the engagement of the 16-25 year olds, e.g. a local gym instructor who had over 300

members and was very popular within the community.

Knowing your own communities and how to engage with them is key to the success of participation

to the programme. For example, the Valleys people are very different to those that live in a city.

Everyone is very close and know each other. This worked to our advantage and as one of the largest

employers in the town, the Council were also able to use their staff to promote the importance of

getting tested and encourage them to attend.

99 | P a g e

9.2. LOWER CYNON VALLEY


The lower Cynon Valley campaign reflected the efforts of other testing pilots (such as those in

Liverpool and Merthyr Tydfil).

Methods used:

It was divided into 4 phases:

1. Announcement

2. Getting ready

3. Testing is live

4. Maintaining momentum

The main form of media used were:

Door-to-door leafleting

Business leafleting

Social media (videos/graphics)

Paid for social media advertising

Website

Press releases/media buy-in

Digital media was the primary form of communication for the campaign, as it allowed regular

communication with residents, as well as providing timely information.

Social media was the most utilised tool in the campaign due to its immediacy and flexibility, allowing

for changes to be communicated to residents with relative ease, as well as its in-built tools for

targeting specific geographical areas.

Physical media, in the form of leaflets, was also provided to residents and businesses in the lower

Cynon Valley area. This allowed for people to have a physical copy of the information to hand if

required, and also to allow residents who don’t use social media, especially older residents or those

with low digital literacy, to make an informed decision on Mass Testing and encouraging attendance.

What went well?

Daily meetings and communication with partners in Merthyr Tydfil, Cwm Taf Morgannwg UHB, and

Welsh Government meant that partners were continually aware of operational activities, as well as

any operational/communications issued that arose.

Large volume of social media posts and paid-for social media advertising ensured that Mass testing

had a high visibility on social media platforms.

Walk-through videos were used on social media to highlight the testing process. These were well

received by people who could familiarise themselves with the process, as well as seeing the safety

measures put in place to protect the public.

Positive messaging was used throughout the campaign to encourage attendance, using inclusive

language and promoting the benefits of getting tested, as opposed to the negatives of not being

tested. This helped to create positive engagement on social media platforms, with people commenting

how they have ‘done their bit’.

100 | P a g e

On social media, some answers to frequently asked questions were scheduled as part of the

communications campaign, which also included a link to more frequently asked questions on our

website. This allowed for people to find answers for themselves without asking the communications

team. It also allowed the communications team to direct questions to the website when asked, with

an approved message, for people to find the answer themselves, saving time.

When messages were posted publically on social media posts, regarding people not receiving test

results or other negative experiences, individuals were encouraged to send a private/direct message

to look further into their experience. By doing this, the team was able to divert negative attention

away from the public sphere and resolve directly with an individual. This was helpful when dealing

with a crucial public health intervention, especially one that is subject to deliberate misinformation

and subversion. The public can be sensitive to negative experiences, which risks eroding trust and

preventing people from engaging with mass testing.

Regular updates were provided on the amount of people who had been tested throughout the day,

with a total provided at the end of the day, which included the number of positive tests and how many

people had been tested in total. These were essential, as these figures were frequently asked for by

individuals and also allowed the media to access the figures without having to contact the

communications team.


Partnership Working

As Whole Area Testing in Merthyr Tydfil was first to begin, in the first instance, the focus of partners

was solely on delivering this element of the Mass Testing.

There appeared to be a reluctance to acknowledge that Whole Area Testing in the lower Cynon Valley

would be taking place until all elements of the Merthyr Tydfil Whole Area Testing were finalised. This

meant that the communications team at Rhondda Cynon Taf were working in parallel with the

communications team at Merthyr Tydfil.

Rhondda Cynon Taf were grateful to Merthyr Tydfil for continuing to share key documents, literature

and assets during the Whole Area Testing pilot, which were used as a basis for the communications

strategy for the lower Cynon Valley.

Upon reflection, it was a missed opportunity for the communications teams in Merthyr Tydfil and

Rhondda Cynon Taf to create a joint communications strategy, as well as joint assets, literature and

branding.

Door-to-door leaflets, testing centre brochures, social media assets are all examples of where it would

have been beneficial for both Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf communications teams to work

in partnership to save time and duplication of work, allowing teams to focus on local messaging.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 health emergency, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf,

alongside Cwm Taf Morgannwg UHB and Bridgend, have worked extensively on COVID-19

communications on a regional basis, which has been very successful.

Partnership working during this time has been beneficial, allowing for pooling knowledge and

resources, creating a regional identity, a shared ‘voice’ on important messages, as well practical

benefits such as relieving staffing pressures and time-constraints.

101 | P a g e

Given the pressures on communications teams at this time, with the extensive and genuine

partnership working that has occurred throughout the pandemic, and the in-house experience

between the two Local Authorities to deliver complete communications campaigns, it would have

been beneficial for all involved to approach the WATP in Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley as

two phases, as opposed to two separate events.

Defining Areas

It’s important to remember that communities/urban areas in Wales are sometimes difficult to split

into administrative areas, or that the various administrative areas (electoral wards, constituencies)

are not always consistent with geographic areas.

Defining areas in this way can lead to lines being drawn through communities, and can confuse people

which was the case with Aberaman South included in the pilot, whereas Aberaman North was not

included. This led to people frequently asking if they lived in the pilot area, and negative feedback

from people who lived within sight of the eligible area.

Furthermore, the pilot area was described as the ‘lower Cynon Valley’ but excluded the communities

of Ynysybwl/Glyncoch which actually fall within the Cynon Valley constituency, on the border with the

Pontypridd constituency. By the constituency definition, this would be the ‘lower Cynon Valley’, and

this led to negative feedback from those communities who felt they were excluded at a time when

cases in those communities were at high levels.

As well as the local area, people from across the County Borough were questioning when it was being

introduced in their area. This was an ongoing theme throughout the WATP.

Leaflet Delivery

Due to the tight timescales involved in promoting the lower Cynon Valley pilot from confirmation to

start of testing, door-to-door leaflet distribution was unable to be handled by an external company.

This meant resource was sought internally from within the Council to deliver these.

The team successfully delivered the leaflets by the start of the WATP, however, it was a significant

logistical challenge to ensure a sizable body of staff to do the delivery and required members of the

communications team to coordinate the deliveries, reducing capacity in the team. This could have

been avoided had there been sufficient time to send these out to our delivery partners to handle the

logistics.

Local Authorities are used to sending mass communications to residents and businesses, and have

systems in place to do this, as is the case with annual Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates

notifications, electoral information and service changes. However, sufficient time is needed to achieve

this, and factoring this into the planning process should be considered at the earliest opportunity.

Conclusions:

From a communications perspective, it can be judged that the lower Cynon Valley Whole Area

Testing pilot was a success. An asset bank of all media communication is available in the lower

Cynon Valley Whole Area Testing Asset Bank55:

55 Lower Cynon Valley Mass Testing Asset Bank: Includes social media assets/videos, posters, testing

brochures, leaflets, signage, social media analytics, and media inclusion list (see appendices)

102 | P a g e

Looking at social media analytics, it highlights a high level of visibility for the campaign, as well as a

genuine interest by people to click through onto our website to find out more information.

Reach: 5.3m

Retweets/Shares: 1,900

Likes: 3,100

Comments/messages: 1,300

Link clicks: 7,900

Feedback from those that attended was extremely positive, with positive messages from visitors

received several times a day throughout the testing period. Praise was mostly on the knowledge and

friendliness of staff, the speed in which the tests were conducted, and the measures put in place to

keep visitors safe.

There was some negativity posted on social media channels, however this was mostly unrelated to

the operation of the WAT. Negative comments were focused on questioning the reliability of the LFD

tests, whether COVID-19 really exists, with a few complaints from individuals who had failed to receive

their test results, although this was small in comparison to those tested

It must be stressed, that many of these negative comments were made by the same individuals, and

also individuals who on social media have consistently spoken out against coronavirus restrictions, the

existence of COVID-19 and have been hostile to any information that has been provided about

coronavirus.

Paid for advertising helped to focus messages at a hyper-local level, especially where a test centre was

open for a limited period of time in one location.

The communications teams in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf responded flexibly to

operational changes, such as the extension of the pilots. The teams delivered comprehensive

communication campaigns, utilising a wide-variety of media to promote and encourage attendance at

testing centres and ensured as many people as possible were exposed to a range of digital and physical

promotion.

A special thank you to the communication colleague at Welsh Government who provided an

exceptional level of support during the pilot.

Communication recommendations:

1. Establish a good working relationship with partners early on in the process and meet regularly.

Communication teams should be involved in the testing planning process from the earliest

opportunity so they can understand the testing process, the operational delivery of testing,

provide communications advice and limitations, allowing sufficient time to create all content

and its delivery, as well as receiving sign off by partners.

2. Clearly define the testing area before announcing and aim to place this within a clearly defined

area, which does not cause confusion or cut through communities.

3. Where a testing area is defined across Local Authority boundaries, it should be approached as

one event, whether they occur at the same time or one at a later date. This will allow a whole

area approach to testing and not viewed as separate events.

4. Local communication teams know their communities the best and should be confident to

challenge decisions made by others.

103 | P a g e

5. Use of local influencers to instil trust and confidence in the process. Also, use these individuals

to highlight the consequences of transmission of the virus.

6. To be able to deliver a comprehensive communication and engagement strategy, sufficient

leading time and the relevant resources are needed.

7. Have a point of contact at each location so that you can provide regular updates to the public.

8. Be open and transparent in relation to the number of tests undertaken and the results.

9. Engaging with businesses is important, communicating the need for staff to get tested to

ensure the safety of their colleagues and customers, but also the benefits to business

continuity and ensuring a large number of staff do not need to self-isolate or risk becoming

infected.

10. The need for agreed messages to resolve any operational queries that are received, such as

when an individual doesn’t receive their test results, as well as for frequently asked questions.

104 | P a g e

10. OPERATIONAL RESEARCH FOR RISK FACTORS IN TRANSMISSION

INCLUDING BEHAVIOURAL INSIGHT

10.1. CASE CONTROL STUDY


There is limited information on what factors are currently driving SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the

community in Wales. Having a better understanding of these, could help tailor interventions to reduce

transmission. The Whole Area Testing pilot presented an opportunity to conduct an epidemiological

study. The aim of this study was to identify social and demographic factors associated with infection

in a high incidence community, in order to inform prevention and control.

Methods used:

An unmatched case-control study in adults (18 and over) attending the WATP for at least one LFD test

was carried out. Cases were all people with a positive LFD test result, controls were a sample of those

with a negative LFD test result. A questionnaire was designed in the software tool Smart Survey, which

included 37 questions on demographic and social risk factors. These included: age; ethnicity;

occupation; area of residence; people who you share a household with; caring responsibilities, and

social interactions in previous 10 days. All newly tested individuals with a positive result (cases) were

sent a text message through the government portal texting service ‘notify.gov’ asking them to

complete a short anonymous self-administered on-line questionnaire in Smart Survey. For each case,

we randomly sampled 10 individuals who were tested on the same day but had a negative test result

(controls). In order to distinguish between cases and controls, a different link was sent to each group

(See text message and questionnaire in the full report56).

Response rates for cases and controls were calculated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression

analysis was carried out using Stata v 14. Odds ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated

for exposure variables.


Practical issues in recruitment into the study

This study was rapidly designed and implemented. Initially recruitment was planned at each testing

site. Cases and controls were to be asked to scan a QR code whilst attending. This approach proved

impractical, and risked obstructing the main purpose of the WATP. Also there were a number of

practical issues in relation to identifying positive cases, as participants were encouraged to leave the

testing site whilst awaiting text notification of their test result. The eventual recruitment strategy was

via text to personal mobile phones. This provided contactless recruitment, reducing health and safety

risk to the field epidemiologists involved. Early text messages sent to the lower Cynon Valley Residents

only referred to the Merthyr Tydfil pilot and this created negative feedback to the Local Authority. The

text messages were amended rapidly by PHW to include reference to both testing areas.

56 Merthyr Case Control Study (see appendices)

105 | P a g e

Data privacy and information governance

As recruitment was through direct text to personal mobiles, information governance advice was

obtained. This epidemiological study was carried out to inform the ongoing epidemic response; and

as such was covered by Public Health Wales’ Establishment Order; and the COVID-19 privacy

statement (see the relevant section below, and the full statement here).

What went well?

Collaborative approach

The study was led by Public Health Wales Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. Throughout the

study we obtained excellent input and engagement from colleagues in Local Authorities, TTP, Welsh

Ambulance Service Trust and the Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. During the planning

process we joined a site visit to Merthyr Tydfil leisure centre and found everyone to be constructive

and highly supportive of us carrying out an epidemiological study.

Statistical power

From previous mass testing exercises, prevalence was expected to be below 1%. Power calculations

were carried out in advance, but there were concerns that if response was poor, particularly amongst

positive cases, the study would not be powered sufficiently to identify statistically significant risk

factors. In the event this was not the case: With 30% response we recruited nearly 200 cases and over

2,000 controls, enabling identification of odds ratios less than two.

Recruitment via text message

Use of Notify government text service to recruit participants worked well. Individuals were contacted

using the mobile phone number which they provided when they attended screening. Notify is a UK

Government run platform which is a secure mass texting service. Notify is compliant with the Data

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-privacy-information/testing-for-coronavirus-privacy-information--2

106 | P a g e

Protection Act and any user data uploaded (e.g. phone numbers) are deleted after 7 days. Data which

passes through the system is encrypted.

Notify has been assessed and approved by the Cabinet Office Senior Information Risk Officer (SIRO).

The SIRO checks this approval once a year. Notify is suitable for sending messages classified as

‘OFFICIAL’ or ‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE’ under the Government Security Classifications policy.

Results of the case control study

This study provides an insight into the most important factors determining community transmission

of SARS-CoV-2. We found that transmission within the household was the most important source of

SARS-CoV-2 infection. Working in the hospitality sector, and visiting the pub were significant risks but

at the time of this study were relatively infrequent exposures. Smoking or vaping had a small but

significant effect. Working in education, living with someone working in education, having caring

responsibilities and visiting a supermarket, restaurant, gym or leisure centre did not appear to

increase risk of infection. This provides information for local action and to inform policy decisions.


Questionnaire design

The questionnaire was designed quickly. Although we piloted the questionnaire on a small number of

individuals, including school nursing staff working in the heath board area, it would have benefitted

from some further piloting prior to implementation.

Improved access to data on Lateral Flow Device test results

Recruitment was carried out using the data collected at registration and test results. These data came

to Public Health Wales from DHSC in England via NHS Wales Informatics Service. Obtaining these data

in a more timely way would have improved our recruitment process.

Conclusions:

This proved a successful addition to the Whole Area Testing pilot. The results of this study have been

used to inform the Community Testing Strategy in Cwm Taf Morgannwg. A full report is available as

an appendix to this report (Appendix X). A manuscript is currently in preparation for submission to a

peer-review journal.

Recommendations:

1. Whole Area Testing is used as an opportunity to carry out studies to answer specific questions

relating to the epidemiology of COVID-19.

2. The results of the case control study are used to inform interventions to limit transmission of

COVID-19 including communication with the public, testing strategies, advice to businesses

and enforcement.

3. The study is published in a peer reviewed journal.

107 | P a g e

11. COMPARISONS – LEARNING FROM OTHER AREAS

The comparisons and learning from other areas relating to schools, is included in the schools section.

11.1. LIVERPOOL


The City of Liverpool and national agencies partnered to pilot community open-access SARS-CoV-2

testing for people without symptoms of COVID-19, living or working in the city. This was part of

Liverpool’s COVID-19 resilience and recovery efforts, with an emphasis on reopening of activities key

to social fabric and the economy, while controlling transmission of the virus57.

Partners set a mission to:

- Identify the virus, wherever it is in the City, and empower local communities to suppress its

transmission while being supported well when they need to isolate or quarantine;

- Identify those who are needlessly self-isolating and empower them to return to usual

activities.

The goals were:

1) Saved lives and improved health outcomes for the City’s residents;

2) Saved livelihoods and businesses, protecting the City’s economy and social fabric; and

3) Sooner and safer reopening of the City as a whole.

Methods used:

Pilot planning was overseen by Liverpool City Council COVID-19 Strategic Co-ordination Group with

the Department of Health and Social Care in England (DHSC) ahead of the Command-and-Control

system being activated on 6 November.

The DHSC, as pilot sponsor, provided the initial directive to the Military unit (8 Engineer Brigade) to

establish 48 new asymptomatic testing sites (ATS) in the City of Liverpool using pre-purchased Innova

lateral flow devices. Two Military staff were seconded to DHSC to act as liaison. The role of the DHSC

during the pilot was to approve the location of test sites, provide financial indemnity for site operators,

approve costings and establish an evaluation steering group.

Approximately 2,000 personnel from 8 Engineer Brigade arrived on Merseyside by 2 November and

established an operational headquarters at HMS Eaglet in Liverpool. Liverpool City Council’s Assistant

Director for Supporting Communities was designated as Military liaison officer, leading local negations

over ATS and linking the Military into the Command-and-Control structure.

Six initial ATS were in Liverpool City Council premises as these could be approved quickly. Military

personnel took responsibility for the buildings and set up the testing infrastructure (signage;

registration desks; testing booths; queueing systems) on 5 November for start the next day. The

selection and confirmation of the second and third phases of further sites for ATS required more

complex negotiation with site owners and DHSC. The process was informed by combined intelligence

from the CIPHA system and analytic expertise from Military, City Council and University partners.

57 Liverpool Covid-19 Community Testing Pilot Interim Evaluation Report 23 December 2020 (see appendices)

108 | P a g e

To assess test performance, approximately 6,000 attendees received a pair of Innova SARS-CoV-2

antigen lateral flow device (LFD) and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Two

supervised, self-administered swabs, first LFD, then PCR, were taken at the same appointment within

minutes. The PCR test used was the standard test used in Lighthouse Laboratories. The results were

sent from NHS Test and Trace to CIPHA and analysed by an independent team at the University of

Liverpool.


Testing most of a UK city’s population for COVID-19 on a ‘mass’ voluntary basis is not feasible. However, targeted testing has potential as part of an intelligence-led local public health intervention. The pilot team developed SMART (systematic, meaningful, asymptomatic, repeated testing), an alternative approach to mass testing. The key elements of SMART are:

- test-to-protect (vulnerable individuals and settings),

- test-to-release (sooner from quarantine), and

- test-to-enable (safer return to key activities for social fabric and the economy).

During the pilot, 25% of 498,000 residents took up lateral flow device tests (LFDs) and 36% took up LFD or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests:

- From 6 November to 9 December 25% of the Liverpool population took up LFD and 36%

took up either LFD or PCR

- 897 positive individuals were identified by LFD and 2902 by PCR.

- The 897 individuals identified by LFD were not aware they were carrying SARS-CoV-2, they

received notification to self-isolate and contact tracing was applied.

- Between a fifth and a third of all SARS-CoV-2 cases detected in Liverpool week by week

since 6 November have been via LFD, most recently 30% from 11-17 December.

- Asymptomatic case and contact identification rose in Liverpool between 6 November and

9 December while the corresponding rates in neighbouring Greater Manchester region fell.

- LFD and PCR uptake was lower in more deprived areas, where test positivity was higher.

- LFD and PCR uptake was lower in men than women.

- LFD uptake was lower in younger compared with older age groups.

- Digital exclusion (proxy measure via area-based Internet User Classification) was a strong

predictor of poor uptake of LFD and PCR.

- 1km longer walk distance to ATS was associated with 5% reduction in LFD uptake, after

controlling for age, deprivation, and digital exclusion.

- At present, there is no clear evidence that that the introduction of community testing led

to a change in COVID-19 case incidence or hospital admissions in Liverpool.

The Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow device sensitivity was lower than expected (based on the preceding validation studies) at 40% but identified two thirds of cases with higher viral loads (~Ct<25).

- Sensitivity (true positive rate) = 40.0% (28.5% to 52.4%; 28/70)

- Specificity (true negative rate) = 99.9% (99.8% to 99.99%; 5,431/5,434)

- Positive predictive value (post-test likelihood of PCR +ve = 90.3% (74.3% to 98.0%; 28/31)

- Negative predictive value (post-test likelihood of PCR -ve = 99.2% (99.0% to 99.5%;

5,431/5,473)

- Predictive values depend on the prevalence in the asymptomatic population, which

changes over time. A prevalence 1.3% was considered of SARS-CoV-2 infection among

asymptomatic individuals using this dataset, which is consistent with ONS estimates for

109 | P a g e

the period. Comparison of the LFD site and QA results showed 5,862 concordant and 7

discordant samples (99.9% concordance).

Local knowledge and targeted communications, including tackling misinformation, were essential.

No firm conclusions can yet be drawn about the effects of a negative test on risk behaviours but the authors report no alarming indicators in survey results.

Supplementary mailing of home test PCR kits resulted in only 8.3% completion so was quickly aborted.

What went well?

The speed of design and implementation of the pilot was challenging, but drew upon, and further

strengthened, the local networks and collaborations delivering Liverpool’s COVID-19 responses.

Military involvement was well-received by the public and by local operational teams.

A combined NHS, Local Authority, and public health intelligence system updated every 30 minutes,

underpinned communications and testing operations.

Awareness of the pilot was high and attitudes towards it were generally positive. Collective identity

and social responsibility were key motivators of testing uptake.

Asymptomatic case and contact identification rose in Liverpool during the pilot period while the

corresponding rates in neighbouring Manchester fell.


LFD uptake in the most deprived areas was half that in the least deprived areas – 16.8% vs. 33.4% –

and test positivity was double in the most vs. least deprived areas (1.0% vs. 0.5%).

Digital exclusion was a substantial barrier to LFD uptake, more than deprivation alone.

Younger people, particularly males, were harder to reach than older people.

Fear of not having adequate support to isolate was a major barrier to taking up testing.

Half of secondary school pupils took up testing, impacted by negative media from outside Liverpool.

Following a briefing on Thursday 8 November for secondary school head teachers to prepare for

testing at schools, an opt-in consent process was agreed. However, one school (not at the briefing)

misunderstood their school would begin testing on the following Monday and sent an opt-out letter

to parents on the Friday. Although this was recalled and replaced with an opt-in letter on Sunday, it

fuelled negative discussion on social media, which damaged uptake of testing at schools. Rates of

consent varied considerably by school. An average of 52.6% of pupils at participating secondary

schools (31 out of 33) were tested. A total of 32,411 tests (84% pupils; 16% staff) were done at schools.

Consultation with residents (via surveys and focus groups) identified that the MAST (mass,

asymptomatic, serial testing) pilot terminology was not well understood. ‘Symptomatic’ and ‘serial’

proved especially challenging terms to communicate. There was insufficient attention to briefing

those attending for testing that they should return within five to seven days for another test.

Misinformation may have affected public confidence and uptake. Misinformed issues included

perception of the risk of infection at test sites, suspicion around Government use of data collected

110 | P a g e

(especially ‘DNA’), and the need to have physical contact with centre staff. The communications team

responded through a page on Liverpool City Council website, daily stakeholder emails; Facebook

messages targeted by postcodes and regular press briefings and contact with ward councillors and

community leaders. Public figures from the football and entertainment communities provided short

influencer videos which were disseminated via social media channels.

Distribution of leaflets via pharmacy prescriptions bags was first discussed on 19th November.

Targeted initiatives such as this would have been beneficial earlier in the pilot.

Community engagement proved challenging in the absence of an existing city-wide voluntary plan.

Although the Liverpool Charity and Voluntary Services (LCVS) had some capacity to act as a liaison

service, and knowledge of charities and neighbourhood groups, it proved impractical to mobilise these

at such short notice to provide a community activation service. Liverpool City Council began a

leafleting drop to targeted neighbourhoods on 20 November, after the main publicity drive, missing

the opportunity for a critical mass of ‘push-pull’ communications.

Discussions around deploying third party vehicles as testing centres were hindered by health and

safety/protocol/sign-off concerns so did not proceed. These would have been a very effective route

into the hardest-to-reach communities that have poor digital engagement.

Conclusions:

Currently, there is no clear evidence that the introduction of ‘mass’ testing in Liverpool impacted on

COVID-19 cases or hospital admissions. Yet a third of Liverpool’s current detection of infected

individuals is via LFD, picking up those without symptoms who would previously have not been tested.

Longer term impacts will be reported later.

Recommendations:

Large-scale, intelligence-led, targeted, and locally driven community testing for SARS-Cov-2, in concert

with other control measures and vaccination, can support COVID-19 resilience and recovery.

The time and scale gained from a low-cost, no-lab test can provide a useful additional COVID-19

control measure with targeted and clearly explained use.

Innova LFD is a helpful tool for finding asymptomatic cases of SARS-CoV-2, and in particular cases with

a higher viral load. However, given its low sensitivity, caution should be exercised in how the device is

applied, particularly in vulnerable settings where the consequences of infection are severe. Here, LFD

should not be used as a direct replacement for PCR but as an additional tool for SARS-CoV-2

transmission control and risk mitigation. Repeated LFD may improve sensitivity but optimal series of

tests for particular uses needs further study. Combinations of LFD and PCR testing also need

investigation. The Liverpool Covid- SMART care home visiting protocol is testing the performance of

two Innova LFD at different swabbing sites within 24 hours, the first accompanied by an evaluation

PCR. Results of this initiative are due to be reported in early 2021.

11.2. SCOTLAND


The Scottish Community Testing Programme pilot aimed to assess whether targeted community

testing, when combined with other measures, can help reduce community transmission by identifying

and isolating positive cases that would otherwise be missed.

111 | P a g e

The Programme is in addition to the expansion of asymptomatic testing programmes in Universities,

Health Care and most recently a pilot in School settings and provides a reactive and targeted response

to high prevalence and the need for enhanced testing in local areas to break the transmission cycle. It

sits alongside the expansion of symptomatic PCR testing through additional Local Test Sites, Mobile

Testing Units, Regional Test Centres, rural satellite hubs and improved home test kit coverage.

Methods used:

Between 26th November and 9th December 2020, testing resources were targeted at eight

communities in Scotland (Alloa, Clackmannanshire; Johnstone, Renfrewshire; Dalmarnock and West

Pollockshields, Glasgow; Stewarton and Dalmellington, East Ayrshire; Girvan and Dalmilling, South

Ayrshire) with high prevalence levels of COVID-19. This involved the deployment of six mobile testing

units, over 4,000 home test kits and the establishment of an Asymptomatic Test Site and Military

planning assistance58.


Any COVID-19 testing intervention can only have an impact if it results in a behavioural change. Moreover, testing is part of a package that could include the promotion of support for those asked to isolate.

What went well?

Over the course of the pilot, 22,133 tests were completed, representing roughly one third of

the target population, of which 850 positive cases identified, giving an overall positivity rate

of 3.8%

4,733 people registered as asymptomatic within the booking system, of which 593 were

positive (12.5%)

15,576 were registered as asymptomatic, of which 228 were positive (1.5%)

The remaining 1,824 were home test kits which resulted in 29 positive cases (1.6%)


Community testing should be agile and targeted at those communities where it can have the

greatest impact.

Conclusions:

There is a need to retain a focus on improving equity and local access to testing. Targeted community

testing, when combined with other measures, may help reduce community transmission by identifying

and isolating positive cases that would otherwise be missed.

Recommendations:

1. Identify geographic areas where there is a concern around levels of community transmission,

and then deploy targeted and rapid testing resources within those communities to enhance

symptomatic testing provision and offer asymptomatic testing options. This could include

bringing testing capacity to places of work and learning in order to improve accessibility. The

58 Letter Community Testing 24 December 2020 (see appendices)

112 | P a g e

identification of communities would be supported by test positivity data and a significant

expansion of the waste water testing programme.

2. Consider how to integrate and build on the opportunity of an intense targeted period of

testing to wraparound a full public health package within a community. This could include the

promotion of support for those asked to isolate.

3. Consider measures to ensure compliance with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in

vulnerable settings and where there are particular risks of transmission within targeted

communities.

113 | P a g e

12. CONCLUSIONS

The Whole Area Testing Pilot has been largely successful. A range of evidence supports this, in

particular:

Partners were able to work effectively together to deliver mass testing in Merthyr Tydfil and

the lower Cynon Valley with a very short lead in time.

There was high take up in the communities and schools (49% in Merthyr Tydfil, 56 % in lower

Cynon Valley), and home testing (36% in Merthyr Tydfil and 45% in lower Cynon Valley),

indicating that the testing was both acceptable and accessible. This compares very favourably

to other pilot areas in Liverpool (25-30% in Communities and 11% home) and Scotland (33%

in communities).

The vast majority, 99.6%, of those attending for the LFD test were asymptomatic. This

indicates that the community understood the purpose of testing and presented appropriately.

Identifying areas and groups with high positivity rates. These included areas of greater

deprivation, males, younger people aged 20-29 years and those in certain occupations i.e.

transport, hair and beauty, hospitality, manufacturing and construction, health and social

care, retail and arts and entertainment. These results confirm that the highest risk occupation

are those where people have closer contact with people, increasing the risk of transmission.

Identifying settings with low positivity, in particular schools, where positivity was much lower

at 0.37%, providing a high degree of assurance in the control measures in schools.

The lower testing uptake in groups of the population with higher positivity rates has clearly

demonstrated an “Inverse Testing Law”. This is an important observation to inform future

testing strategies.

Case control study enabled further analysis of risks of COVID-19 transmission in this

population. The transmission within the household was the most important source infection.

Working in the hospitality sector, and visiting the pub were significant risks but at the time of

this study were relatively infrequent exposures. Smoking or vaping had a small but significant

effect. Working in education, living with someone working in education, having caring

responsibilities and visiting a supermarket, restaurant, gym or leisure centre did not appear

to increase risk of infection.

The very conservative analysis using evidence based assumptions, daily reproduction number

(Rt) and sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 353 cases, 24 hospitalisations, 5 ICU admissions

and 14 deaths were likely to have been prevented as a result of this pilot, in Merthyr Tydfil

alone.

Cost effectiveness analysis showed that the pilot was highly likely to be cost effective, with an

incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £2,292 per QALY gained. Net monetary benefit for the

intervention, which is cost savings plus the value of QALYs gained was £5.8 million compared

with the £515,688 cost of the pilot in Merthyr Tydfil.

The intelligence gained from the pilot will inform future community testing and

communication strategies. In concluding this report it is important to consider whether the

aims and objectives of the Whole Area Testing pilot were achieved.

114 | P a g e

In concluding this report it is important to consider whether the aims and objectives of the Whole

Area Testing pilot were achieved.

The aim of the pilot was to:

1. Test whether or not large-scale testing can yield a significant and sustained reduction in


1, 135 asymptomatic cases were identified in communities, schools and homes.

Cases, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths were prevented.

The modelling of cases prevented demonstrate the significant and sustained reduction in

the weeks following the pilot.

The clouding of impact by the National Lockdown on 20/12/20 is important contextually,

but the use of relevant data modelling successfully elucidated the impact of the pilot with

LFD testing presented in this report.

2. Make testing accessible to an agreed area(s) entire population and incentivise uptake.

Testing was accessible in communities at different times, in schools and at home for

those shielding. Home calls in the lower Cynon Valley increased uptake of home testing

for those shielding.

The high testing uptake of the population at 49% Merthyr Tydfil and 56% in lower Cynon

Valley, which is double that found in the Liverpool pilot, provides evidence to support

this.

One stop shop approach to access to support for self-isolation provided easier access to

support.

In respect of incentivising uptake, communications played a role: “do your bit”, led by

Local Authorities, trusted sources of information and community leadership. However

lower uptake in deprived, younger and males indicates that more work is needed to target

these populations and additional income support may be a barrier to uptake.

3. Identify index cases and prevent further transmission through contact-tracing and other

measures.

Asymptomatic cases were identified in communities, schools and homes.

Contact tracing was offered at the point of test in the main testing stations, but

telephone follow up proved to be better in engaging cases and identifying contacts.

Cases prevented, hospital admissions prevented, ICU admissions prevented and deaths

prevented.

4. To protect those at highest risk

The outcomes of the analysis demonstrate that identification and self-isolation of

asymptomatic cases can prevent onward transmission, hospitalisation, intensive care

admissions and deaths. Those in the population that are at highest risk, are those with

severe morbidity requiring hospital admission, ICU stays and often result in death. In

demonstrating this it is evident that Whole Area Testing with LFD protects those at highest

risk.

115 | P a g e

5. To empower the local community to arrest and reduce the community spread to as low as reasonably possible in order to save lives and save livelihoods and businesses.

This was evidenced by (1) the levels of community participation, and (2) the actual impact on transmission clearly highlighted in this report.


There were only 21 individuals who had positive LFD results, and subsequently went on to have negative PCR results. These 21 individuals and their contacts were subsequently released from isolation.

It should be noted that 52% of people with a positive LFD result in Merthyr Tydfil, and 61% in the lower Cynon Valley went on to have a PCR test. As a consequence, there will be a small proportion of people (from the 486 that did not go on to have the PCR test) who would have been likely to be negative and continued to isolate along with their contacts. We estimate that would have been 16 people and their contacts.

7. To assess the impact of testing on behaviour of participant.59

There was no data available to evaluate whether or not this was achieved.



This evaluation report provides detailed information and links on the methods used, standard

operating procedures, communication and engagement strategies, lessons learned and

recommendations for further roll out. This is effectively a blueprint for whole town, city,

borough or regional testing. In addition the interim report14 was published to inform further

action along with a series of presentations across TTP teams in Wales to inform planning for

Community Testing.


The Whole Area Testing pilot identified 763 cases in Merthyr Tydfil and 372 in lower Cynon

Valley. With 99.6% of those testing being asymptomatic and 49 % and 56% uptake

respectively, and positivity rates of 2.3% and 2.6%. This coupled with the positivity rate of

different segments of the population, including those under represented but with higher rates

of positivity gives a good understanding of prevalence of asymptomatic cases in the

population and a much improved understanding compared with symptomatic testing only.

The uptake and results of the Whole Area Testing pilot have provided an important insight

into the true prevalence rate in the community. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases

are probably an underestimate of actual prevalence as they both rely on individuals

presenting for testing.



The Whole Area Testing pilot has provided important and reliable intelligence to inform

further action. It is a key part of the intelligence, along with pilots of LFD testing in other

settings and the analysis of the information collected during contact tracing of symptomatic

cases from the TTP CRM system to tailor action to further reduce prevalence.

59 Added post implementation and not stated in the SOP and CONOP

116 | P a g e

This will inform the further roll out of community testing to target parts of the population with

higher positivity rates to break routes of transmission further in these higher risk groups

including geographical areas, occupations and settings.

With respect to schools testing, the whole school testing can be quite disruptive to the

delivery of the curriculum and would be better considered as part of cluster investigation.

Targeted testing of contacts of cases would limit disruption, especially if it could be carried

out at home, prior to attendance at school with an effective system of validating and reporting

of test results.


The Whole Area Testing pilot was successful in demonstrating that the new technology of LFD testing could be deployed in an agile and scalable way. The offer was made across two geographically defined areas, of different population size, with a hub and spoke model to increase accessibility. The lessons learned in the process provide a useful guide to deploy this technology further on smaller and more targeted populations for maximum effect.

Assessment against each of the hypothesis

In returning to the assessment against each of the hypothesis generating in the Liverpool pilot, it can

be seen that the potential positive outcomes were all achieved with the exception of reduced

morbidity, which was not known. None of the negative outputs were seen, although whether

increased risky behaviours following testing and increased mobility were not known.

117 | P a g e

13. RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of general recommendations can be made following the learning in this report, as well as

specific recommendation in relation to the components of the report.

General recommendations:

The Whole Area Testing pilot in Merthyr Tydfil and the lower Cynon Valley has demonstrated that

mass testing using LFD tests is acceptable to the community, effective in preventing cases,

hospitalisations and deaths and cost effective as an intervention. The use of mass testing for

asymptomatic members of the community should be considered an important and effective part of

any COVID-19 Control Plan.

1. The LFD test deployed in the context of high community prevalence of the disease identified

infections in asymptomatic persons, with higher positivity rates in some groups and areas than

others. As such, future use of this in community testing should be targeted at areas and groups

of the population with higher positivity rates. In this pilot this indicates that testing should

be targeted in more deprived areas, at men, younger people and occupations with close

contact who cannot work from home, for example construction and manufacturing, personal

services such as hair and beauty, health and social care and education.

2. Improved support, particularly financial support, is needed to motivate those at the highest

risk of having the disease to come forward for testing and comply with self-isolation guidance.

3. It is essential that the implementation of the plan is locally led, in partnership with Local

Authorities, health services and the Third Sector.

4. Contact tracing services, in this case the Local Authority led Test Trace Protect service, should

be fully integrated into the testing to ensure prompt follow up of cases for isolation and

support and contact tracing to ensure compliance and break routes of transmission.

5. Good communication with community members is needed to underpin the roll out and secure

good engagement and uptake.

6. It is recommended that information is collected and analysed to inform action in terms of

communication, targeted messaged to higher risk groups, developing guidance to prevent

transmission as well as monitoring and enforcement. Analysis of uptake rates and positivity

rates by geographical area, deprivation, occupation, age and gender provides useful

information to inform more targeted community testing and action.

7. Mass testing offers a valuable opportunity to include further research to inform action. The

case control study implemented in this pilot is recommended for future roll out to inform

action, identify new routes of transmission and comparison risk factors.

8. The use of a hub and spoke model for the location of testing stations is important to allow

access to all areas of the community and the inclusion of secondary schools is important.

118 | P a g e

Specific recommendations:

Governance recommendations:

The governance and reporting arrangements were felt to work well during the pilot.

9. In establishing Whole Area Testing, it is recommended that a Senior Responsible Officer is

appointed to lead and that senior leaders are identified in each partner organisation, including

Welsh Government, to form a Steering Group. These leaders should be able to make decisions

and allocate resources on behalf of their respective organisations. In addition specialist

communication staff should be in place to support.

10. Regular meetings, daily during critical periods, should be maintained to ensure rapid decision

making and good communication.

11. Time should be given to properly define the aims and objectives and plan all aspects of

delivery.

Planning recommendations:

12. Securing a planning resource and adopting a project management approach to such a project

(including lessons learned) is key.

13. Ensure that the planning focus is on the development of an end-to end-pathway, from the

point of accessing the testing, all the way through to results received, contact tracing and self-

isolation support where required.

14. A good communications and engagement plan underpinning this work is critical to ensure

good community awareness and attendance.

15. Ensure a focus on project evaluation at the beginning of the project. This will help secure the

right resource and agreed approach as to how the project results will be captured, evaluated

and shared.

16. Depending on the context and type of LFD testing service being established, some of the

lessons learned above may provide useful recommendations for consideration in setting up a

similar service elsewhere.

Implementation recommendations:

17. Implementation of the pilot was the most challenging and labour intensive part of the whole

process as might be expected. Good leadership, excellent team work and positive

partnering with the Military made this a successfully implemented pilot, set against the

backdrop of tight timescales and being new to Wales in nature.

18. It is recommended that in terms of the implementation of similar projects, the Lessons

Learned Log is considered, as this provides a range of learning and experience across a wide

range of areas experienced during the pilot.

Logistics recommendations:

A robust logistical plan is essential to a smooth operation of a complex programme

19. Provide home testing kits for those that test positive (7 day supply).

119 | P a g e

20. Consider at an early stage if Military support is required, and request for a Military Advisory

Team (MAT) initially, that can inform whether additional Military support is required either

for planning or delivery purposes.

21. Protect - The re-introduction of borough wide or regional resilience planning to strengthen

the connection between co-ordinated volunteering and the redeployment of staff across

sectors in an emergency situation would be welcomed.

Schools based testing recommendations:

The pilot in schools demonstrated that whole school testing was possible and successful. The

following recommendations are made to assist further roll out in Wales:

22. Whole school testing requires considerable resources to facilitate the process. Sufficient time

to plan the introduction of whole school testing should be allowed to effectively introduce the

testing.

23. Co-ordination from the Local Education Authority is essential to facilitate good

communication, the logistics and equipment needed, and to quickly respond to any issues

arising.

24. The School Leadership Team should have the flexibility to allow each school to determine the

most effective way to deliver the programme in their environment. If all teams are trained,

they can take ownership of the programme using generic operational guidance in support.

25. Effective communication with staff, pupils and parents or carers is essential to ensure trust in

the programme and high uptake.

26. Messaging to schools should be streamlined, as multiple sources can be confusing. Clear

guidance is needed from Welsh Government, allowing scope for bespoke operational

arrangements that can be tailored to reflect the local needs of each school community. This

should include: a generic pack for schools, with practical examples such as animated videos

showing the test in process, etc. Training materials already in circulation within the UK (e.g.

Universities) should be assessed by the Welsh Government, and if suitable adapted for use

within schools in Wales, e.g. Welsh language.

27. Effective, accessible IT systems should be available to support the testing process and

equipment such as bar code readers should be provided.

28. Clarity on flow of data for General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) purposes would be

beneficial.

29. Whole school testing is very disruptive to teaching and normal delivery of the curriculum. If

introduced, it would be helpful to limit it to the start of the school e.g. start of term or

immediately following lockdown when schools are closed.

30. The LFD test is quick and effective in identifying asymptomatic cases. The use of this test for

contacts of cases has great potential to limit the number of children self-isolating and missing

school. If such contacts opt out of testing, self-isolation for 10 days after the last contact must

be maintained, as well as for any days that the test is not available e.g. weekends and holidays.

31. In using a more selected testing process e.g. for staff and pupil contacts of cases, routinely in

schools, it should be noted that there are some limiting practical factors in this approach. In

particular, the testing would need to commence at the start of the school day, pupils

undergoing the test would need to be isolated until the results are known. This has the

potential to create a bottleneck at the start of the school day. In addition there is limited

space to test large numbers of pupils, without disrupting other school activities e.g. dining

120 | P a g e

halls. This could only be undertaken for small numbers of contacts and not whole year groups.

Guidance may need to be amended to provide greater clarity to identify true contacts rather

than class, year group or travel bubbles. Contingency arrangements would need to be put in

place to safely isolate any positive cases until parents could collect them or safe transport is

arranged. This will cause particular problems for schools with a large catchment area reliant

on school transport, if parents or carers cannot leave work at short notice or do not have

access to a car.

32. Selective use of LFD testing could be extended to all staff to maintain numbers at work,

including agency and peripatetic staff, interview candidates and contractors entering the

school environment.

Resources recommendations:

33. In order to accurately record resources used it is recommended that finance colleagues are

engaged in the early planning and implementation including staff rotas.

34. Although it was possible to repurpose some existing staff roles, for example leisure staff while

leisure centres were closed, additional staff were employed to support the pilot and this

“additionality” needs funding commitment.

35. The value of additional calls to increase engagement for home testing should be considered

as part of any further roll out, having regard to positivity rates in this population.

Analysis of testing uptake and outcomes recommendations:

36. Additional support to low income households to isolate is imperative for greater uptake and

compliance.

37. Targeting testing of low uptake occupations with higher positivity rates, including tailored

financial incentives should be considered to increase uptake in these groups that have the

potential to transmit COVID-19 to larger client base.

Estimated cases, hospitalisations and deaths prevented in Merthyr Tydfil recommendations:

38. Further analysis of the costs avoided by the mass testing, in terms of cost per hospitalisations

or ICU admission, relative to the cost of the mass testing exercise will provide further insights

into the benefits of LFD mass testing from a health economics perspective.

Economic Evaluation of Merthyr Tydfil Mass Testing Recommendations:

39. It will be useful to compare with economic evaluations of other mass testing pilots such as in

Liverpool and other parts of the world.

40. Further analysis could look at the threshold of community prevalence at which mass testing

becomes cost-effective.

Waste water testing recommendations:

41. Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 in the wastewater network provides additional independent and

useful information regarding the presence of the virus in the community, which is

independent of whole area testing.

121 | P a g e

42. Timely planning meeting(s) with appropriate representation from all team partners (not only

those primarily involved in wastewater monitoring), reasonably in advance of start of whole

area testing, are essential to focus on sampling site identification – taking into account factors

such as network configuration, relative ease of access (manholes, CSOs, pumping stations,

wastewater treatment works, etc.), special sites (e.g. hospitals, prisons, large

businesses/schools/institutions, etc.).

43. Number of sampling sites, sampling frequency and types of sample (grab/composite) need to

be calibrated and ensured suitable for area/population.

44. Maintain co-ordination and communication between all team members before, during and

after the whole area testing window.

45. Ensure dedicated wastewater monitoring operations team pipeline from sampling through

sample processing and analysis to allow results to be obtained and shared in as close to real

time as possible; i.e. initial results within 4-5 days of sampling.

46. Confirmed results should be used for higher level analysis, e.g. contextualised and correlated

wherever possible with COVID-19 testing and other appropriate public health metrics for the

area/population undergoing testing.

47. Continued development of methodologies for wastewater sampling, and processing and

analysis of samples suitable for the range of communities across Wales; i.e. urban (large, high-

density populations, excellent wastewater network connectivity), peri-urban (medium-sized,

variable density populations, good wastewater network connectivity) and rural (relatively

small, low density populations, variable or poor wastewater network connectivity)

communities.

Communication and engagement recommendations:

48. Establish a good working relationship with partners early on in the process and meet regularly.

Communication teams should be involved in the testing planning process from the earliest

opportunity so they can understand the testing process, the operational delivery of testing,

provide communications advice and limitations, allowing sufficient time to create all content

and its delivery, as well as receiving sign off by partners.

49. Clearly define the testing area before announcing and aim to place this within a clearly defined

area, which does not cause confusion or cut through communities.

50. Where a testing area is defined across Local Authority boundaries, it should be approached as

one event, whether they occur at the same time or one at a later date. This will allow a whole

area approach to testing and not viewed as separate events.

51. Local communication teams know their communities the best and should be confident to

challenge decisions made by others.

52. Use of local influencers to instil trust and confidence in the process. Also, use these individuals

to highlight the consequences of transmission of the virus.

53. To be able to deliver a comprehensive communication and engagement strategy, sufficient

leading time and the relevant resources are needed.

54. Have a point of contact at each location so that you can provide regular updates to the public.

55. Be open and transparent in relation to the number of tests undertaken and the results.

56. Engaging with businesses is important, communicating the need for staff to get tested to

ensure the safety of their colleagues and customers, but also the benefits to business

continuity and ensuring a large number of staff do not need to self-isolate or risk becoming

infected.

122 | P a g e

57. The need for agreed messages to resolve any operational queries that are received, such as

when an individual doesn’t receive their test results, as well as for frequently asked questions.

Case control study recommendations:

This proved a successful addition to the Whole Area Testing pilot. The results of this study have been

used to inform the Community Testing Strategy in Cwm Taf Morgannwg.

58. Whole Area Testing is used as an opportunity to carry out studies to answer specific questions

relating to the epidemiology of COVID-19.

59. The results of the case control study are used to inform interventions to limit transmission of

COVID-19 including communication with the public, testing strategies, advice to businesses

and enforcement

60. The study is published in a peer reviewed journal.

123 | P a g e

14. CONTRIBUTORS

Our gratitude is expressed to all those people who contributed to the mass testing pilot, and

evaluation including, our communities, Local Authorities, Schools, Health Board, Welsh Government,

Welsh Ambulance Service Trust, Police, Third Sector, Military, and Public Health Wales.

Whole Area Testing Evaluation Group Members:

Angela Jones, Chair of the Whole Area Testing Evaluation Group, Deputy Director of Public

Health, CTMUHB

Adrian Davies, Policy Lead for Community Testing, Welsh Government

Alun Teagle, Learning Department Support Team, MTCBC

Alyn Owen, Interim Deputy Chief Executive, MTCBC

Andrea Richards, Service Director for 21st Century School RCTCBC

Andrew Jones, Head of Finance, CTMUHB

Behrooz Behbod, Consultant Epidemiologist, Welsh Government

Brendan Collins, Head of Health Economics, Welsh Government

Ceri Dinham, Head of Corporate Communications, Consultation and Engagement, MTCBC

Chris Roberts, Head of Behavioural Science Welsh Government (Health Covid19)

Christian Hanagan, Service Director, Democratic Services and Communications, RCTCBC

Daniel Thomas, Consultant Epidemiologist, PHW Elaine Tanner, Directorate Manager COVID-19 Testing, CTMUHB

Helen Griffiths, Learning Department Support Team, MTCBC

James Whitehurst, Cabinet, Public Relations & Digital Communications Officer, RCTCBC

Professor Kelechi Nnoaham (Professor), Executive Director of Public Health, CTMUHB

Lisa Gorringe, Business Manager, Catering Services, RCTCBC

Lisa Jones, Personal Assistant, PHW

Louise Davies, Service Director for Public Protection, RCTCBC

Margaret Munkley, Senior Public Health Practitioner, PHW

Mark Drakesmith, Epidemiological Data Scientist, PHW

Major Peter Harrison, Joint Military Command (Wales)

Paul Griffiths, Service Director, Finance and Improvement Services, RCTCBC

Rachel Rowlands, Chief Executive Officer, Age Connects Morgannwg

Rachel Thomas, Finance Manager, CTMUHB

Dr Richard Kyle, Deputy Head of Research and Evaluation, PHW

Dr Robin Howe, Professional Lead Consultant, Microbiology, PHW

Rod Francis, Headteacher, Cyfarthfa High School, Merthyr Tydfil

Ruth Treharne, Senior Planner, CTM TTP

Rutuja Kulkarni-johnston, Consultant in Public Health, PHW

Sarah Hopkins, Headteacher, Bishop Hedley RC School, Merthyr Tydfil

Sue Walker, Chief Education Officer, MTCBC

124 | P a g e

15. APPENDICES

The appendices identified within the footnotes of this report, are available on this website.

evaluation of the lateral flow device testing pilot for

Documents