METADATA last updated: 2026-02-17 RT file_name: _context-commentary_guides-test-site_WIP.md category: guides subcategory: test-site words: 902 tokens: 1144 CONTENT ## Context The test-site subcategory contains 16 documents that collectively address the operational side of running FloodLAMP surveillance testing at deployment sites. These files served the people responsible for day-to-day test execution—site administrators, testing staff, and in some cases individuals filling both roles. There was never a single comprehensive operational manual. FloodLAMP's deployments varied significantly in scale and setting, from municipal programs testing fire and first responder staff in cities like Coral Springs and Davie, Florida, to small school-based programs with limited testing volumes, such as Needham, MA. This variation made a one-size-fits-all document impractical, and the materials in this subcategory reflect that: they are a collection of targeted documents, each addressing a specific aspect of site operations. The files fall into several functional groupings: - **Site checklists** — Daily testing procedures, weekly maintenance tasks, and ongoing readiness standards, customized for specific sites (Abrome, Alpine, Portola). These were the core operational documents that staff used each testing day. - **Setup and logistics** — Facilities requirements, equipment receiving instructions (drop ship template), and the assay cart drawer arrangement guide, which standardized how supplies were organized in the four-drawer rolling carts used at each site. - **Specimen handling and testing workflows** — Collection kit assembly instructions, the resulting decision charts (both tabular and flow chart formats) defining how to interpret test outcomes through triplicate re-run logic, and decontamination procedures at three severity levels (light, moderate, and heavy). - **Participant- and family-facing materials** — Consent forms, a school program information flyer template for families explaining how pooled surveillance testing worked, collection guides for participants, and app quick-start guides for sponsors and participants. - **Results communication** — Guidelines for staff on how to communicate outcomes within the regulatory constraints of non-diagnostic surveillance testing, including templates for notifying sponsors and organizations about positive or inconclusive pools. - **Best practices** — A do's and don'ts checklist (from the Kent Camp deployment) capturing practical lab handling habits to reduce contamination risk and prevent sample mix-ups. The backup collection form (a Google Form for the Abrome site) served as a fallback for registering samples when the FloodLAMP mobile app was unavailable. Several of these documents connect to other parts of the archive. The reagent preparation SOPs referenced in the site checklists are found in the _guides/manufacturing_ subcategory. The test training materials referenced in the Abrome checklist are in _guides/test-training_. The consent language and surveillance framing tie directly to the regulatory materials in _regulatory/surveillance_ and the IRB documentation in _regulatory/irb_. Additionally the archive file: _various/fl-presentations/Bend Pilot Program Bring-up (12-01-2021).md_ is relevant as a bring-up guide. ## Commentary These files represent the documents we were most satisfied with and that proved most useful in practice. We had many more operational documents over the course of the project, but what's included here are the ones we think others are most likely to be interested in. The move to the assay cart drawer arrangement was one of the more impactful operational improvements. Before that, sites kept supplies in bins, or bags on shelves. The four-drawer plastic cart was a significant upgrade. It was easy to clean and keep clean (key for a molecular lab test), the size was right, and having a standardized layout for what went in each drawer made our job and that of the on-site tester easier. For initial site setups, we shipped labeled bags with the contents pre-sorted by drawer, which helped with coordination, training, and standardization across sites. The fact that there's no single comprehensive operational manual reflects the reality of our deployments. The programs were quite different from each other. A municipal program testing hundreds of first responders in South Florida operates very differently from a small school-based program in Texas. A universal guide would have been either too generic to be useful or too complex to maintain. The site-specific checklists worked better in practice. They were customized to each location's workflow, intake logistics, and communication channels (typically Slack), and they gave testing staff a concrete, step-by-step reference for every testing day. However, this variety made support and maintenance a huge challenge for FloodLAMP. And it was a major barrier to scaling. The communications guidelines addressed a real constraint of operating under surveillance testing guidance rather than clinical diagnostic authorization. We could not give participants individual diagnostic results. The language in that document was carefully developed to refer participants for follow-up diagnostic testing without crossing that line. It's a good example of how regulatory framing shaped day-to-day operations in ways that wouldn't be obvious from the outside. Some of these documents were adapted from others used for surveillance testing, rather than drafted de novo by FloodLAMP attorneys. We very much appreciate others in the space who shared their documents openly during the pandemic. These were crucial for us at FloodLAMP. The communications guidelines addressed a real constraint of operating under surveillance testing guidance rather than clinical diagnostic authorization. We could not give participants individual diagnostic results. The language in that document was carefully developed to refer participants for follow-up diagnostic testing without crossing that line. It's a good example of how regulatory framing shaped day-to-day operations in ways that wouldn't be obvious from the outside. Some of these documents were adapted from others used for surveillance testing, rather than drafted de novo by FloodLAMP attorneys. We very much appreciate others in the space who shared their documents openly during the pandemic. These were crucial for us at FloodLAMP.