METADATA last updated: 2026-03-10_105742 file_name: _archive-combined-files_fl-whitepapers_12k.md category: various subcategory: fl-whitepapers gfile_url: **FLAGGED - TBD user-facing Google-hosted public file URL** words: tokens: CONTENT # _archive-combined-files_fl-whitepapers_12k (4 files, 12,157 tokens) # 2,141 _AI_Comparable Programs Survey - Household Pooled COVID-19 Testing.md METADATA last updated: 2026-02-22 AI file_name: _AI_Comparable Programs Survey - Household Pooled COVID-19 Testing.md file_date: 2026-02-22 title: FloodLAMP Comparable Programs Survey - Household Pooled COVID-19 Testing category: various subcategory: fl-whitepapers tags: comparable-programs, household-pooling source_file_type: md xfile_type: NA gfile_url: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14WBw9ClWZa9ATj2VJzPOWphDMR1ldbQo-HvDkCPmxvo xfile_github_download_url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FocusOnFoundationsNonprofit/floodlamp-archive/main/various/fl-whitepapers/Comparable%20Programs%20Survey%20-%20Household%20Pooled%20COVID-19%20Testing.md pdf_gdrive_url: NA pdf_github_url: NA conversion_input_file_type: NA conversion: NA license: CC BY 4.0 - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ tokens: 2141 words: 1372 notes: Created by AI (model not specified by user) during archive preparation. **NOT HUMAN VERIFIED - MAY CONTAIN ERRORS** Survey identifying publicly documented COVID-19 testing programs with operational characteristics comparable to the FloodLAMP preschool pilot, drawing from government guidance, peer-reviewed articles, and K-12 testing implementation reports. summary_short: Survey of publicly documented COVID-19 testing programs comparable to the FloodLAMP preschool pilot's combination of at-home self-collection, household-level pooling, fast molecular turnaround, and decentralized near-site processing. Ranks six programs by overall similarity, provides a feature comparison matrix, and concludes that the full four-part combination appears rare in public documentation, especially in early childcare/preschool settings. CONTENT ## Prompt (Cleaned) Identify publicly documented COVID-19 testing programs most similar to the FloodLAMP preschool pilot's specific combination of: (1) self-collected samples at home/household, (2) household-level pooling, (3) fast-turnaround molecular testing (PCR/NAAT/LAMP), and (4) decentralized near-site processing.] **Files included in context window:** FloodLAMP Whitepaper - California Preschool Family Pooled Screening Pilot (June 2022).md ## Overview Below are the closest publicly documented programs found that resemble the FloodLAMP preschool pilot's specific combination of: - Self-collected samples (especially collected at home / in household) - Household-level pooling (pooling by family/household rather than classroom-only/random pooling) - Fast-turnaround molecular testing (PCR/NAAT/LAMP with rapid operational turnaround) - Decentralized near-site processing (on-site/near-site rather than "send to a central lab and wait") Programs are ranked by overall similarity to that full combination (not by prestige or scale). --- ## Most Similar Programs Found (Ranked) ### 1) Abrome (Austin, Texas) -- Daily Onsite "Pooled Household" LAMP Surveillance Testing Abrome publicly described a program where each family/household submits a pooled household sample and the pooled samples are used for LAMP surveillance testing, with language indicating it was an on-site daily testing approach. **Why it's highly similar:** - Household-level pooling ✅ - Molecular/LAMP ✅ - On-site/near-site processing ✅ (described as "on-site" / onsite daily program) - Self-collection ✅ (framed as household submission; materials describe household pooling as the unit of collection) **Key caveat vs FloodLAMP preschool description:** - The public materials found do not clearly publish an operational "sample-to-answer" turnaround time (e.g., <2 hours). They emphasize the structure (household pooling + LAMP + on-site/daily) more than a quantified turnaround SLA. --- ### 2) University of Cambridge (UK) -- Pooled PCR Screening Where Pools Corresponded to "Student Households" This was a real, large-scale asymptomatic screening program (autumn 2020) in which students self-administered swabs in their own accommodation, and swabs from up to 10 students were pooled, with pools generally corresponding to student households. Samples were dropped off at college sites and delivered the same day; the program aimed for results within 24 hours, and positive pools triggered same-day individual confirmatory PCR. **Why it's highly similar:** - Self-collected (in residence) ✅ - Household-level pooling ✅ (student households) - Molecular PCR ✅ - Decentralized processing ✅ (university's own PCR testing center) - Operational speed ✅-ish (results within 24h, with same-day confirmatory for positives) **Key difference vs FloodLAMP preschool pilot:** - Turnaround was described as within ~24 hours, not the sub-2-hour near-site turnaround emphasized in the preschool pilot narrative. --- ### 3) UK Health Security Agency (England/Scotland) -- "Cohort Pool Testing" Pilot for Student Households The UK ran a pooled-testing pilot aimed at student households, with testing self-administered and completed in the household, using groups up to 5 people. The pooled kit (multiple swabs into a single tube) was dropped off to the university the same day so it could be sent to a lab. **Why it's similar:** - Household pooling ✅ - Self-administered in household ✅ - Molecular testing ✅ (PCR pathway; framed as lab testing) **Key differences vs FloodLAMP preschool pilot:** - Processing is explicitly "send to the lab," not a decentralized near-site model. - Turnaround is not described as near-real-time; it's tied to lab logistics. --- ### 4) "Pooling in a Pod" (Washington, DC Independent PreK-12 School) -- Weekly On-Site Point-of-Care NAAT Pooled Testing A Washington, DC preschool-grade 12 school implemented weekly on-site point-of-care pooled NAAT testing ("pooling in a pod"). Staff and older students self-collected anterior nares samples; younger students were collected by trained staff. The school selected a portable Visby Medical NAAT run on-site with ~30-minute turnaround and reported an average 40 minutes from collection to result. **Why it's similar:** - Pooled testing ✅ - Molecular NAAT ✅ - Decentralized on-site processing ✅ - Very fast operational turnaround ✅ (tens of minutes) **Key differences vs FloodLAMP preschool pilot:** - Pooling is by pods/classroom/social cohorts, not households. - Collection is primarily at school (under observation), not at-home household collection. --- ### 5) One City Schools (Madison, Wisconsin) -- At-Home Saliva Collection + On-Site RT-LAMP The Rockefeller Foundation's "early adopters" review describes One City Schools using saliva collected at home and processed on-site using RT-LAMP in a pop-up lab model. **Why it's similar:** - At-home collection ✅ - Molecular (RT-LAMP) ✅ - Decentralized/on-site processing ✅ **Key difference vs FloodLAMP preschool pilot:** - This is not described as household pooling (it's primarily individual saliva samples in the sources found). --- ### 6) New York School Programs Using NewNorm + Mirimus -- At-Home Saliva Collection + Pooled PCR, Off-Site Lab Processing The Rockefeller Foundation report describes programs where families/students collect saliva at home, samples are pooled (e.g., 24 per pool), and then shipped by courier to Mirimus Clinical Labs for pooled PCR; turnaround was described as typically <24 hours (sometimes ~12 hours), with a 48-hour guarantee in one described configuration. **Why it's similar:** - At-home collection ✅ - Pooled molecular testing ✅ **Key differences vs FloodLAMP preschool pilot:** - Pooling is not household-based (pooled across larger groups). - Processing is off-site at an external lab (not near-site decentralized processing at/near the school). - Turnaround is "fast for PCR," but not near-real-time (<2 hours). --- ## Quick Similarity Matrix Legend: ✅ = clearly described in public sources; ◐ = partially/indirectly; ❌ = not described / opposite | Rank | Program | Self-collected (at home/household) | Household pooling | Molecular | Near-site processing | Operational turnaround described | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Abrome (Austin, TX) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (LAMP) | ✅ (on-site described) | ◐ (not clearly quantified) | | 2 | Univ. of Cambridge (UK) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (PCR) | ✅ (university testing center) | ✅ (~<24h; same-day confirmatory) | | 3 | UKHSA "cohort pool testing" pilot | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ (PCR) | ❌ (sent to lab) | ◐ (depends on lab) | | 4 | Pooling in a Pod (DC school) | ◐ (self-collected, but at school) | ❌ | ✅ (NAAT) | ✅ (on-site) | ✅ (~30--40 min) | | 5 | One City Schools (WI) | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ (RT-LAMP) | ✅ (on-site) | ◐ (not "<2h" in the summary) | | 6 | NewNorm + Mirimus (NY) | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ (PCR) | ❌ (off-site lab) | ✅-ish (~12--24h typical) | | | | | | | | | --- ## What Was Not Found Across the sources located (government guidance, peer-reviewed/PMC articles, and major K-12 testing implementation reports), no clearly documented childcare/preschool program was found that simultaneously had: - At-home self-collection - Household pooling - Rapid molecular turnaround on the order of hours (not 12--48h) - Decentralized near-site processing The closest "full-combination" matches found are: - **Abrome** (K-12 school, US) describing pooled household LAMP with on-site daily testing in public materials. - **University programs** (Cambridge; plus UK national pilot) where pooling aligned to "households," with self-collection in residences, but PCR lab processing and turnaround closer to same-day/next-day rather than hours. --- ## Additional Context Supporting Rarity of Household Pooling A Belgian national public health advisory (Sciensano/RAG Testing) explicitly discusses "household pooling" as a concept, recommends piloting it in real-life settings, and notes that (as of that advisory) the only country they identified where household-type pooling had been piloted was the UK, adding that they could not find results of that UK pilot. That is not proof no other programs existed, but it is a strong signal that household pooling (as a distinct operational approach) was uncommon and not widely documented, even in expert guidance. --- ## Bottom Line - There is publicly available information describing programs with the same distinctive "household pooling + self-collection" structure, notably the UK university pilot guidance and the University of Cambridge implementation (household-aligned pooling). - However, the full "FloodLAMP-style" combination -- at-home household pooling plus near-site decentralized processing plus very fast molecular turnaround measured in ~hours or less -- appears rare in public documentation, especially in early childcare/preschool settings. The best "near-complete" analogs outside FloodLAMP were: - **Cambridge** (household pooling + self-collection + local PCR testing center; ~<24h results), and - **Pooling in a Pod** (very fast on-site molecular pooled testing; but not household pooling and not at-home collection). # 777 _context-commentary_various-fl-whitepapers.md METADATA last updated: 2026-02-22 RT file_name: _context-commentary_various-fl-whitepapers_WIP.md category: various subcategory: fl-whitepapers words: 602 tokens: 777 CONTENT ## Context This subcategory contains two white papers produced by FloodLAMP Biotechnologies documenting its surveillance screening programs. The first, "California Preschool Family Pooled Screening Pilot" (June 2022), is a polished, self-contained document describing FloodLAMP's at-home family pooled COVID-19 surveillance testing program at a California preschool. It covers program onboarding, at-home collection and drop-off workflows, near-site processing, and reporting practices. The document presents detailed case studies comparing FloodLAMP's molecular LAMP test to rapid antigen tests (Abbott BinaxNOW and iHealth), outcomes from the 2021–2022 school year including the Omicron surge period, and community feedback. It is one of the most complete single-document descriptions of a FloodLAMP program in operation. The second, "EMS and Municipal Screening Pilots," is an unfinished draft documenting FloodLAMP's surveillance programs with EMS departments and municipal workers in Coral Springs and Davie, Florida, and Bend, Oregon. The document contains a partially written narrative, placeholder data requests, internal outlines, and editorial notes indicating sections that were never completed. Despite its incomplete state, it captures the operational framework and early outcomes of these deployments, including the rapid scaling that occurred during the Omicron surge. Detailed data and documentation from FloodLAMP's pilot programs, including the preschool and EMS programs referenced in these white papers, can be found in the Pilots category of the FloodLAMP archive. An AI comparison to other screening programs during the pandemic has been created with ChatGPT 5.2 Pro Extended and is contained in the following archive file. _AI_Comparable Programs Survey - Household Pooled COVID-19 Testing.md ## Commentary The California preschool whitepaper captures what may have been a unique approach to COVID-19 surveillance during the pandemic. While other programs employed pooled testing, most notably classroom-level pooling of 10–20 student samples sent to a central lab, we are not aware of any other program that combined self-collected samples, household-level pooling, fast-turnaround molecular testing, and decentralized near-site processing. Each of these elements existed in some programs individually, but their combination in a single real-world program may have been distinctive to FloodLAMP. A key advantage of the household pooling approach was that it extended surveillance coverage beyond the enrolled students to their family and household members. By testing the entire household, typically the nuclear family but sometimes including extended family or household staff, the program caught infections in individuals who were not themselves part of the school community. Of the six case clusters for which deconvolution or referral data are available, three involved a non-student family member as the initially positive individual, often a sibling. Because household members are in close and sustained contact, an undetected asymptomatic case in one person is likely to spread to others in the home. Catching a positive household member, such as a sibling or parent, through routine screening gave the family the opportunity to isolate and monitor before the enrolled student became infected or, if already infected, before that student attended school and transmitted to classmates. This provided a meaningful increase in the school's ability to prevent incoming cases from individuals who would otherwise arrive asymptomatic and contagious, and it allowed families to quarantine or test-to-stay rather than discover the infection after exposure had already occurred in the school setting. The EMS whitepaper remained unfinished and was never published. It contains valuable fragments, particularly the case studies and the data on absenteeism rates during the Omicron surge (approximately 12% at Coral Springs and Davie compared to 30–35% in neighboring departments), but the internal outlines, data requests, and placeholder sections. The draft preserves the working state of this effort and may still serve as a useful reference for the operational model and early outcomes of EMS-based in-house molecular screening. # 4,192 FloodLAMP Whitepaper - California Preschool Family Pooled Screening Pilot (June 2022).md METADATA last updated: 2026-03-06 by BA file_name: FloodLAMP Whitepaper - California Preschool Family Pooled Screening Pilot (June 2022).md file_date: 06-30-2022 title: FloodLAMP Whitepaper - California Preschool Family Pooled Screening Pilot (June 2022) category: various subcategory: fl-whitepapers tags: whitepaper source_file_type: gdoc xfile_type: docx gfile_url: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TOnklq-65XUX-v-li018rteK9jeL8NgqbNrtbndgD_o xfile_github_download_url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FocusOnFoundationsNonprofit/floodlamp-archive-wip/main/various/fl-whitepapers/FloodLAMP%20Whitepaper%20-%20California%20Preschool%20Family%20Pooled%20Screening%20Pilot%20%28June%202022%29.docx pdf_gdrive_url: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13SD5Rw_TGwIU_lrhvFahxA8VSoRIImdH pdf_github_url: https://github.com/FocusOnFoundationsNonprofit/floodlamp-archive-wip/blob/main/various/fl-whitepapers/FloodLAMP%20Whitepaper%20-%20California%20Preschool%20Family%20Pooled%20Screening%20Pilot%20%28June%202022%29.pdf conversion_input_file_type: docx conversion: pandoc license: CC BY 4.0 - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ tokens: 4192 words: 3049 notes: summary_short: The “FloodLAMP Preschool Pilot Whitepaper” describes a California preschool’s at-home family pooled COVID-19 surveillance testing program using FloodLAMP’s QuickColor molecular LAMP test, including onboarding, collection/drop-off workflows, near-site processing, and reporting practices. It documents pilot outcomes across the 2021–2022 school year (including the Omicron period), presents case studies comparing FloodLAMP to rapid antigen tests, and summarizes participation, turnaround time, and community impact with supporting figures and feedback. CONTENT ***INTERNAL TITLE:*** Early Childcare COVID-19 Surveillance: At Home Family Pooled Testing Pilot in a California Preschool Protecting young children during the pandemic through innovations in disease screening **Randy True** – CEO, FloodLAMP Biotechnologies, PBC **Theresa Ling** – Program Experience and Design, FloodLAMP Biotechnologies, PBC contact@floodlamp.bio *Special thanks to New England Biolabs for support and generous donation of reagents.* ## Table of Contents | | | |---------|------| | **About FloodLAMP** | **3** | | **Importance of Preschool and Early Childcare Screening** | **3** | | **Overview of FloodLAMP Surveillance Screening** | **3** | | **California Preschool Pilot Details** | **4** | | **Omicron Surge** | **5** | | **Case Study: FloodLAMP vs BinaXNow Ag** | **6** | | **Case Study: FloodLAMP vs iHealth Ag** | **6** | | **Program summary: how it works** | **7** | |     Program onboarding | 7 | |     At-home collection | 7 | |     Drop off at school | 8 | |     Near-site processing and true turnaround time | 8 | | **Program administration** | **8** | |     Testing schedule | 8 | |     Notification and Reporting | 8 | |     Admin portal | 8 | | **Testing Data** | **9** | | **Impact and feedback from the community** | **10** | || ## About FloodLAMP FloodLAMP’s mission is to enable globally scalable mass disease screening, for COVID-19 and beyond. We are a Public Benefit Corporation focused on distributing accurate and affordable molecular testing. We have innovated on multiple fronts to create a best-in-class platform that is unique in the testing space. The test chemistry is an instrument-free, extraction-free rapid molecular LAMP test that is visually read with a simple color change. We are expanding to high priority populations during the pandemic to address the acute unmet need for accessible, effective testing. For more about our programs, plans, mission and how you can get involved, please contact us through the website at [floodlamp.bio](http://www.floodlamp.bio). ## Importance of Preschool and Early Childcare Screening There are over 23 million children in the US who are under 5 and are only recently eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite Omicron’s overall reduced severity, the 2021/2022 winter surge resulted in a sharp [rise in hospitalizations of young children to record levels](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/health/covid-children-hospitals.html). This is concerning and should prompt a committed response to better protect this vulnerable group. Additionally, the stress and practical problems that result from preschool outbreaks have taken a severe toll on families and communities, as described in many articles.[1][2] [1] [*The omicron surge is causing chaos and anguish for parents of kids under 5,*](https://docs.google.com/document/d/185R7gPFNOYWvCvMVRlWOph5UYHjKG8RHd0XBfMXoaDM/edit#) Rachel Swan, SF Chronicle, Jan. 20, 2022 [2] [The Agony of Parents With Kids Under 5](https://slate.com/technology/2022/01/kids-under-5-vaccine-parents.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist), Jaime Green, Slate, Jan 11, 2022 ## Overview of FloodLAMP Surveillance Screening “Surveillance” is the technical term for testing that is non-diagnostic and not medical. Surveillance testing or screening looks for infection in a population or community, and has expanded greatly during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. The information from surveillance testing can be used for the purpose of stopping the spread of the disease and for managing risk mitigation measures for the group. No exchange of personal health information is required for surveillance. Further, a much greater degree of flexibility in where and how testing is implemented enables programs such as FloodLAMP’s to improve safety and enable groups to interact naturally and confidently. FloodLAMP has successfully operated 10 surveillance programs in 4 states, screening first responders, entire municipal workforces, preschools, and other organizations. The programs span a wide range of scales and configurations that include both FloodLAMP staff and partner/customer staff doing the administration and running the tests. During the Omicron surge, we supported the rapid ramping up of test volume, especially for our EMS and municipal workers programs, and FloodLAMP became the go-to testing modality over slower, expensive lab PCR and less accurate antigen tests. These programs use the FloodLAMP Mobile App to register who is in the sample pools, which are typically co-workers collecting on-site at their workplaces or families collecting at home. The program is optimized to be run from barebones locations that can be on- or near-site, which significantly shortens sample-to-answer turnaround time. Recently in our California preschool pilot, we’ve deployed at-home pooled collection by families in what, to our knowledge, is a first of its kind program. Pooled testing has grown during COVID however it consists primarily of pooling random samples at a central lab. Programs utilizing the pooling of student samples from a single classroom, at the levels of 10-20, have been largely ineffective and unpopular due to the delay and disruption from finding out someone in a classroom was positive 1-2 days ago. FloodLAMP takes a different approach with family/household pooling. This increases the protection of the interacting group, such as a school or workplace, by extending coverage to another population layer, and thus giving advance warning or infection risk for the group member. The advantages of family pooling are especially important during high prevalence, where the standard guidance is that pooling isn’t appropriate or effective. Having a program that continues to perform efficiently and effectively in the face of rising cases is game changing. Inter-household transmission remains the primary vector for community spread. Picking up a positive in the family provides an early warning signal, giving the family the opportunity to use a brief quarantine or test-to-stay to stop spread in the school itself. Our decentralized, local screening model gives the flexibility to quickly deconvolute positive pools on the same day, finding which family members are infected and allowing them to take precautions to protect other family members and their community. In both our FloodLAMP operated programs and those run by our EMS partners, we have used this successfully to stop the pernicious asymptomatic spread within first responders, offices, schools, and even households. _Overview diagram or photo illustrating FloodLAMP surveillance screening, family pooling, or decentralized near-site testing workflow._ We believe the program described below is among the most effective COVID-19 suppression approaches utilized in schools or any other setting. It rivals and potentially exceeds that of very expensive testing programs used in sports and entertainment. Through working with a number of collaborators and partners, we’ve shown what’s possible when disease screening is reconsidered from the ground up. We are actively working to disseminate our programs nationally and globally as a model of this cornerstone capability of pandemic preparedness and response. ## California Preschool Pilot Details Approximately 40 families attend the California preschool that participated in FloodLAMP’s pilot program. The school has programs serving kids as young as 18 months up to pre-K. Since early 2020, they have taken a proactive approach to safeguarding the school: limiting class pod sizes, purchasing and installing air purifiers, providing ample ventilation, and primarily holding class activities outdoors when the weather permits. FloodLAMP first engaged with the preschool to begin a pooled family testing pilot program after the 2021 November/Thanksgiving break. The program began with voluntary participation with bi-weekly testing on Mondays and Tuesdays. The voluntary participation rate was around 25% initially, but increased to about 50% by the end of the year. SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in any samples during the November and December 2021 timeframe. ## Omicron Surge As the school went into Winter Recess, the Omicron surge was hitting the US, prompting the school to “strongly encourage” participation in the program. Over the break, several additional families opted into the program. At this point FloodLAMP had not yet picked up any positive results from the school. This changed after the break. On Sunday January 2nd, FloodLAMP tested 12 family pools. **Of these pools, 2 were unknown new positives.** The families were referred to follow-up diagnostic testing and the school administrators were immediately notified. The 2 positive families were asymptomatic and unaware that they had contracted COVID-19. At about 9pm, Carillon administrators made the decision to move to **mandatory testing** for all returning students. They would not accept antigen test results, requiring molecular testing by either PCR or FloodLAMP. The county-sponsored community PCR testing offered at the local middle school took 4 days to return results from samples taken on Monday, January 3. That same day FloodLAMP returned results in 75 minutes. FloodLAMP continued 2x/week mandatory testing for Carillon from January to June. The preschool has maintained a 100% participation rate (excluding individuals within their 90 day post-infection “testing holiday”). **There was a single exposure warning in May of 2022 (resulting in increased testing), zero closures, or no outbreaks at the school for the entire 2021-2022 school year.** *Results from Monday 1/10/22* _Photo of FloodLAMP test tubes or strips from Monday 1/10/22 run: yellow indicates positive, pink negative; includes positive control and confirmation samples._ *Results from Thursday 1/13/22* _Photo of FloodLAMP test tubes or strips from Thursday 1/13/22 run: yellow indicates positive, pink negative._ *Yellow = positive (each run has 1 positive control; several individual samples included for confirmation 1/10/22)* *Pink = negative* ## Case Study: FloodLAMP vs BinaXNow Ag One of the families referred to follow-up diagnostic testing on 1/2/22 had no symptoms and no known exposure. Following FloodLAMP’s referral: - The parents tested with Abbott BinaXNow antigen tests that evening – both returned negative results. - On 1/3/22, FloodLAMP re-tested all 4 family members individually. Both parents’ samples were positive and the 2 children negative. The parents were once again referred to follow-up diagnostic testing and the family isolated. - On 1/9/22, both children subsequently tested positive by FloodLAMP. The chart below details the case progression and testing history for each family member: _Chart showing case progression and testing history for each of the four family members; blue indicates negative and red indicates positive by date._ *Blue = negative; Red = positive* This example illustrates the improved performance of the FloodLAMP test over antigen test strips in finding new infections early and thus stopping spread. Our other deployments have also seen many instances of the FloodLAMP test picking up new cases 1-2 days before antigen tests. This case study also highlights the power of family pooling. Testing students once a week by even 24 hour turnaround PCR leaves significant opportunity for outbreaks and all the negative downstream consequences. ## Case Study: FloodLAMP vs iHealth Ag On Monday 5/2/2022, FloodLAMP tested 24 families and found 1 positive pool. Families had previously been screened Thursday 4/28. All 4 family members (who were asymptomatic) were referred to follow-up diagnostic testing and school administrators were immediately notified. Following the referral: - The student was picked up before noon, while school was still in session. - All 4 family members retested with iHealth antigen tests within an hour of the referral from their positive surveillance test. All antigen test results were negative. - All 4 family members submitted samples for lab based PCR testing early in the afternoon, being told results would take at least 24 hours. - FloodLAMP deconvoluted the pool with individual testing of 3 of the family members early in the afternoon and the 4th in the evening. Running the 3 samples took less than 10 minutes of hands-on time and costs less than $10. - Only one family member (the elementary school age sibling of the preschool student) was found to be positive by the deconvolution FloodLAMP testing and referred again to follow up diagnostic testing. - The sibling was isolated at home on Monday afternoon awaiting the PCR results and further antigen testing. - On Wed morning, the sibling tested positive by antigen test. The PCR results were received that morning as well, confirming FloodLAMP’s results of the single positive within family. - The positive sibling remained asymptomatic throughout. - No other family members tested positive in further testing over the next week, by both antigen and FloodLAMP surveillance testing. They were able to effectively quarantine and mask, preventing inter-household transmission due to the early detection. This case again illustrates the benefit of accurate, frequent and flexible surveillance screening in both preventing outbreaks in the school setting and disruption from potential exposure. Additionally, through family pooling and the early identification of an asymptomatic case, even intra-household transmission was prevented. ## Program summary: how it works ### Program onboarding There are 2 parts to the program onboarding: - **Consent** – All participants submitting samples must sign a consent form. In this pilot, this has been done by individual parents/caregivers who also consent on their minors’ behalf. This may also be administered by the school for efficiency. - **App account set up** – All program participants are required to create FloodLAMP accounts, but only 1 adult per household is required to actively use the FloodLAMP Mobile App to record and submit samples. Program administrators create and manage the accounts. Alternatively, families may sign up through a web form. _Screenshot or photo of consent form or consent process._ _Screenshot of FloodLAMP account creation or sign-up (web or app)._ _Screenshot of FloodLAMP Mobile App interface for recording or submitting samples._ _Screenshot of program administrator view for creating or managing participant accounts._ ### At-home collection Families pick up collection kits on campus. Each kit includes instructions and all the tubes and swabs needed for sample pools of 4. Families **collect at home using the app**. They must collect within 24 hours of the drop off time. ### Drop off at school There is an on-site drop box for returning samples. The return schedule generally coincides with the regular school drop off time for convenience. The teachers help to check that students entering the classroom have submitted samples on testing days. ### Near-site processing and true turnaround time Samples are picked up and run for processing near-site (5 minutes away). This near-site model ensures the fast turnaround time, which is essential to managing and preventing outbreaks. Turnaround time for samples has usually come in **under 2 hours**, with results available well before school is out. ## Program administration ### Testing schedule Testing for the majority of the school year was twice per week, on Monday and Thursday mornings. We determined that 2X/week was an optimal balance of very high protection without being too onerous. This extra protection is due to a combination of factors in our program: 1) mandatory participation, 2) family pooling, 3) the accuracy of our molecular test in picking up early infections (in contrast to antigen test strips), and 4) the rapid 2 hour or less turnaround time (in contrast to central lab PCR). Samples were dropped off by 9am when classes start. After holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas/New Years, and MLK), testing was performed the evening before school resumed. This holiday protocol helps a great deal because students attending class that first day back have had their entire families test negative by a high accuracy molecular test within the last 24 hours. It does however have the tradeoff of needing families to make an extra trip to drop off samples on a Sunday. Convenience for families is a major part of our approach to program design. We strive to make all aspects of FloodLAMP testing as easy as possible, so people continue to participate and have a satisfying experience. However, there are tradeoffs such as Sunday evening testing, which can be decided along with other mitigation protocols, such as masking Monday mornings. ### Notification and Reporting We operate under the CMS regulatory framework of Surveillance Screening. As such, FloodLAMP does not provide results to program participants. Instead, positives are referred to follow-up diagnostic testing and negatives are not notified. The FloodLAMP app has a status list that will indicate to program participants when the surveillance screening is complete. Following each screening, the FloodLAMP program administrator sends a complete report of participation and results to the school administration. It is up to the school to enforce their COVID-19 policies based on the reports. ### Admin portal The app platform portal enables program administrators to manage users, check kit statuses, look up tubes by ID or name, and edit information pages in the app. _Screenshot of the FloodLAMP admin portal showing user management, kit statuses, tube lookup, or information page editing._ ## Testing Data _Chart or graph of testing data over the pilot period showing positive results clustered in January and May 2022 surges._ *Positives clustered during Jan and May surges.* _Chart or table showing composition of positive pools: proportion that included a student on campus versus parents or siblings only, illustrating advance warning from family pooling._ *Only 1 positive pool included a student that was on campus. For the truly unknown asymptomatic cases, all but this one were parents or siblings of the preschool student, providing the critical advance warning and extra protection of family pooling.* ## Impact and feedback from the community Unlike most nearby preschools and childcare centers, the piloting school has not had any COVID-19-related closures since FloodLAMP began its surveillance screening program. Positivity rates dramatically climbed in January 2022 and again in early May, however, the program has effectively suppressed potential outbreaks. No school-based transmission has been reported and families have been able to test-to-return and test-to-stay, allowing for the highest possible in-person attendance. FloodLAMP and the school are now close partners, and they have come to rely on FloodLAMP for guidance around protocols and safety. Importantly, the program has helped to quell some of the pandemic-driven anxiety in the community (which is especially acute for families with children under 5), and the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive: *“I really appreciate this process. \[Name\] tested positive on an antigen test at home today and is now showing symptoms, so I truly appreciate the surveillance program picking this up! Thank you again!!!”* - Parent of a student who was referred to follow-up testing while negative on antigen and pre-symptomatic *“Thank you so much for helping to get our kids tested and doing what you can to keep them safely in school! We are all so lucky to have you as part of our community!”* - Parent of a student and MD, wrote to school administrators to move to mandatory testing with FloodLAMP *“I thought \[FloodLAMP\] was perfect. Easy and convenient.”* - Parent of a student and restaurant owner who later wanted to extend FloodLAMP testing to her restaurant employees *“You are a godsend to our community. I cannot begin to thank you for all of your support and love in keeping our community safe in this difficult time.”* - Preschool teacher and administrator # 3,504 FloodLAMP Whitepaper - EMS and Municipal Screening Pilots DRAFT WIP.md METADATA last updated: 2026-03-06 by BA file_name: FloodLAMP Whitepaper - EMS and Municipal Screening Pilots DRAFT WIP.md file_date: 2022-05-09 title: FloodLAMP Whitepaper - EMS and Municipal Screening Pilots DRAFT WIP category: various subcategory: fl-whitepapers tags: whitepaper source_file_type: gdoc xfile_type: docx gfile_url: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cy1jJfdq3YQdIZII3_f0FEe1_XVrv0O-YWX6M3UbyEM xfile_github_download_url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FocusOnFoundationsNonprofit/floodlamp-archive-wip/main/various/fl-whitepapers/FloodLAMP%20Whitepaper%20-%20EMS%20and%20Municipal%20Screening%20Pilots%20DRAFT%20WIP.docx pdf_gdrive_url: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TIcfX_lUYoYx_UW9kYgKSk79vcU3DHFj pdf_github_url: https://github.com/FocusOnFoundationsNonprofit/floodlamp-archive-wip/blob/main/various/fl-whitepapers/FloodLAMP%20Whitepaper%20-%20EMS%20and%20Municipal%20Screening%20Pilots%20DRAFT%20WIP.pdf conversion_input_file_type: docx conversion: pandoc license: CC BY 4.0 - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ tokens: 3504 words: 2548 notes: This is an unfinished DRAFT WIP document. It contains highlighted editorial notes, placeholder data requests, and internal outlines for sections that were never completed. The document was likely written in early-mid 2022 based on internal references to the Omicron surge (Dec 2021 - Jan 2022). summary_short: An unfinished draft whitepaper describing FloodLAMP's EMS and municipal COVID-19 surveillance screening programs in Coral Springs/Davie, FL and Bend, OR, including program setup, Omicron surge response, case studies comparing FloodLAMP to antigen testing, and impact on workforce absenteeism. The document includes internal outlines and data requests for sections that were never completed. CONTENT ***INTERNAL TITLE:*** EMS and Municipal COVID-19 Screening: Protecting first responders and city workers during the pandemic Real world data from LAMP surveillance programs Prepared by: **Randy True** – Founder and CEO, FloodLAMP Biotechnologies, PBC randy@floodlamp.bio **Theresa Ling** – Program Experience and Design, FloodLAMP Biotechnologies, PBC theresa@floodlamp.bio ## Table of Contents | | | |---------|------| | **Table of Contents** | **2** | | **About FloodLAMP** | **3** | | **Overview of FloodLAMP Surveillance Screening** | **3** | | **FloodLAMP and EMS** | **3** | | **Early stages** | **3** | |     Coral Springs and Davie | 3 | |     Bend | 4 | | **Omicron Surge** | **4** | |     Coral Springs and Davie | 4 | |     Bend | 5 | | **Case Study 1: Fast turnaround time to stop spread** | **5** | | **Case Study 2: Accuracy of FloodLAMP vs Antigen** | **6** | | **Program summary: how it works** | **6** | |     Set up: lab and staff training | 6 | |     Processing and turnaround time | 7 | | **Impact and outcomes** | **7** | || ## About FloodLAMP FloodLAMP's mission is to enable globally scalable mass disease screening, for COVID-19 and beyond. We are a Public Benefit Corporation focused on accurate, accessible, decentralized molecular testing. We have innovated on multiple fronts to create a best-in-class platform that is unique in the testing space. The test itself is instrument-free, extraction-free rapid molecular LAMP. The results are visually read with a simple color change. We are expanding to high priority populations during the pandemic to address the acute unmet need for accessible, effective testing. For more about our programs, plans, mission and how you can get involved, please contact us through our website at [floodlamp.bio](http://www.floodlamp.bio). ## Overview of FloodLAMP Surveillance Screening "Surveillance" is the technical term for testing that is non-diagnostic and not medical. Surveillance testing or screening looks for infection in a population or community, and has expanded greatly during the COVID Public Health Emergency. The information from surveillance testing can be used for the purpose of stopping the spread of the disease and for managing risk mitigation measures for the group. No exchange of personal health information is required for surveillance. Further, a much greater degree of flexibility in where and how testing is implemented enables programs such as FloodLAMP's to better meet the needs of groups looking to interact more safely. ## FloodLAMP and EMS The capability FloodLAMP enables has found a natural fit with the EMS community. The importance of low absenteeism for first responders cannot be overstated, as there are multiple negative downstream effects of reduced staffing such as longer 9-1-1 call wait times, longer ambulance response times or disruptions in fire services. FloodLAMP has 3 EMS surveillance programs operating in 2 states, screening first responders and municipal workers: Coral Springs, FL, the town of Davie, FL, and Bend, OR. These departments adopted and scaled an ambitious in-house program for rapid molecular screening to enable resiliency, local control, and the ability to test on their own custom schedule. The outcomes of the programs have resulted in reduced staff outages, increased safety, and further investment in this capability. We believe the program described below is among the most effective and affordable COVID suppression approaches. It rivals and potentially exceeds expensive testing programs used in sports and entertainment, and can serve as a model to be scaled nationally and globally. ## Early stages ### Coral Springs and Davie In June 2021, FloodLAMP, in partnership with NSVD (National Scientist Volunteer Database) and Research Aid Networks, provided COVID screening for an EMS leadership conference. One EMS leader then used FloodLAMP to successfully screen a teen summer camp his children were attending in July 2021. Based on that experience, he made the decision as Chief Medical Officer for the EMS departments in Coral Springs and the Town of Davie, FL in Broward County to institute FloodLAMP's screening program for these departments in early August 2021. On November 15, 2021, the Town of Davie made the decision to extend voluntary screening to all municipal workers. ### Bend The EMS department at Bend, OR was aware of the successful screening program running at Coral Springs and Davie. They became interested in bringing up in-house screening to screen a small number of samples per week from unvaccinated individuals to remain in compliance with COVID guidelines. The convenience and affordability of the FloodLAMP program was a good fit for this need and helped to reduce costs incurred by PCR testing. Bend's entire lab set up and training was supported remotely by FloodLAMP staff in early December 2021, in collaboration with a volunteer scientist from *a local education nonprofit*. ## Omicron Surge ### Coral Springs and Davie Between late September to early December 2021, both Coral Springs and Davie experienced low prevalence and did not detect any unknown positives with FloodLAMP. This quickly changed with the rise of the Omicron surge in early-mid December. Because the screening capability was already in place, they were able to quickly ramp up testing to meet the sharp surge demand, scaling from **[low number]** to **[high number]** with the addition of **[how many staff? What kind of schedule?]**. This proved to be incredibly valuable in protecting their critical human infrastructure and minimizing outages. _Bar chart for FloodLAMP COVID testing activity in Davie, FL from late September 2021 through early January 2022, measuring people tested, sample tubes run, known positives confirmed, and unknown positives found. Testing volume remained minimal for months before surging dramatically in late December 2021, with confirmed positives spiking to ~1,500._ In terms of reliability, FloodLAMP's screening became the go-to testing modality over slower, expensive lab PCR and less accurate antigen tests during this surge. Turnaround time for PCR results in this area was averaging **x-x days between date- date.** ### Bend The introduction of Bend's screening program happened to coincide with the period just before the Omicron wave. Bend's timing on establishing their screening capability could not have been better planned to handle the Omicron surge. For their first three weeks in operation, they screened a small number of weekly samples, but immediately following the Christmas holidays, the surge hit and they were able to more than quadruple their testing because of their established set up, finding dozens of unknown positives and protecting their workforce. This was achieved with minimal additional labor and a single re-order of supplies from FloodLAMP. *[chart placeholder: 0 unknown positives from Dec. 7-Dec. 27 to 171 from Dec. 28-Jan. 24]* "It's been a godsend," their EMS Training Officer running the program told FloodLAMP. Every positive they have screened has been confirmed by PCR. ## Case Study 1: Fast turnaround time to stop spread A member of top leadership at the Town of Davie turned positive. His entire family was immediately sampled. 1 of 2 children positive, that child kept home from school, potentially stopping spread in school. Need dates, any other testing performed? ## Case Study 2: Accuracy of FloodLAMP vs Antigen Described in recorded interview in Jan 2022: 22 positives in 1 day Thought it was a mistake, reran all samples – all positive All participants reflexed to antigen (BinaxNow) – only 1 came back positive All people returned to work 1-2 days later, all were positive by antigen (how many days?) ## Program summary: how it works ### Set up: lab and staff training Securing appropriate space on-site and in-house staff to run the test were the first steps in kicking off these projects. Both departments were able to allocate a single empty room for lab space and one light-duty firefighter to run the assay. FloodLAMP staff were on-site at kick off to consult on lab set up and provide training for running the assay. Consultation and training are now also available as remote services and certifications. ### Program management Each deployment has a functional Program Administrator who manages the organizational aspects of the screening program, including onboarding for participants, sample collection, clinical referrals, and reporting. Each department has customized aspects of the program to fit their staff profile and needs. These functions may be assisted by FloodLAMP's digital tools. *FloodLAMP app for (pooled) sample collection* _FloodLAMP mobile app interface for pooled sample collection, featuring screens for collecting and returning kits, scanning QR codes, adding participants, and viewing results with color-coded timelines._ *Admin Portal for account management and reporting* _Admin portal for account management and reporting, with a user directory showing names, emails, phone numbers, and group assignments alongside tools for importing users and managing consent logs._ ### Processing and turnaround time In-house lab staff process the samples on the collection schedule determined by the Program Administrator. Our deployments have been able to routinely turnaround results in **under 2 hours**. ## Impact and outcomes All 3 deployments have been able to successfully screen and capture unknown positives to protect the safety and health of their workforce through the Omicron surge. At the peak of the surge for Coral Springs and Davie, these departments experienced about 12% absenteeism vs. roughly 30-35% absenteeism in neighboring departments. *Tube pics?* _Two sets of FloodLAMP test tubes are shown in racks. The left image shows several yellow-tipped positive samples among the pink negatives, while the right image displays predominantly pink negative results._ *Yellow = positive (each run has 1 positive control)* *Pink = negative* FloodLAMP's program was already well regarded by each deployment in terms of its cost-effectiveness and convenience before Omicron. After Omicron hit, however, the program's surge capability exceeded expectations and each deployment was able to scale quickly to meet the needs of its population. The feedback from each deployment and the people they serve has been overwhelmingly positive: *"FloodLAMP has saved us countless hours of our staff waiting in lines to get tested. This has given many families peace of mind or forewarning. If testing is easy and prompt, people will do it."* - EMS Training Officer and Paramedic *"I'm done with PCR."* - Fire Chief running FloodLAMP *"This allows me to bring in PCR-level quality testing that we can run within an hour ... I can test thousands of people if I want to."* - Chief Medical Director at Coral Springs and Davie ### Outline (CS and Davie) Introduction - These first 2 depts boldly adopted ambitious in-house program for rapid molecular screening. This enables: - Resiliency - Local control - Ability to test on a custom schedule - Reduced staff outages - Increased safety How it began - FloodLAMP tested the EMS leadership conference in June 2021 with partners at NSVD and Research Aid Networks. - This led to important connections. One leader took system to summer camp to test kids. - Based on that experience, he brought FloodLAMP to his EMS departments in FL, early August 2021 *(Delta surge?)* - *Numbers of people screened per week? Schedule? Was is mandatory?* Omicron - Went from optional to mandatory - Scaled up to meet demand - Depts have moved to FL as go-to testing over antigen and PCR (can we cite reasons why? Do we have data for failures of antigen and PCR?) Case studies (Omicron) Leader @ Davie - Person turned positive. His entire family was immediately sampled. - 1 of 2 children positive, that child kept home from school, potentially stopping spread in school. - Need dates, any other testing performed? Tester @ CS - 22 positives in 1 day - Thought it was a mistake, reran all samples – all positive - All participants reflexed to antigen (BinaxNow) – only 1 came back positive - All people returned to work - 1-2 days later, all were positive by antigen *(how many days?)* Outcomes - Further investment in this capability - Model for other EMS departments, we have multiple inquiries and increased demand - X staff members trained *(do we have exact number?)* - *Do we have data for plot chart similar to Carillon write up? Pics of tubes, plates? Comparison with antigen?* - *Chart with the testing increase with positivity* - Able to move from nonDx test to Dx test to therapeutics as needed *(number of people hospitalized?)* *\*\* From Medical Director* *He will connect us with Data Scientist at CS* - *Keeping tabs on HR/data since beginning of pandemic* - *Uptick in usage of FL* - *About 12% at peak of employee absenteeism (heard it was somewhere in 30-35% absenteeism that led to shut downs)* - *Lauderdale, a few other places* - *Coral Springs has about 1200 people across area* - *Never had to shut down a station* IRB – friends of broward county, anonymized, 20 cities in this area, 5-7 question survey - Absenteeism (week by week) during Omicron - Model used for testing/suppression - Look for patterns in conjunction with modality - Look back at information for the next wave in terms of best practices Sunrise (Broward County) – they went full herd immunity - Fire chief is getting raw data from this city City of Hollywood Good stories: - Kept city open - People avoiding long lines and long waits for results - Therapeutics access from early infection detection (hospitalization) – CS Data Scientist has # of people who got therapeutics ### Outline (Bend) How it started - Invested in capability before Omicron - They were checking a compliance box – low cost alternative to expensive PCR ($100 pp/test) - FL charged $6/reaction (can pool to 2 with mini system but they have only run individual) - Mandatory for unvaxxed people - Ran 20 samples/week During Omicron - Ramped up to meet demand - Reorder - "Godsend" Outcome - Ability to immediately move to testing entire fire department when surge was needed - With existing capability, were able to increase to meet demand (just involved moderate amount of additional staff time) ### Can we get from Medical Director: (by city) - Total ppl screened over time + test positivity and absenteeism - \# people referred to therapeutics, vaccination status and hospitalization rates of those people - Leader @ Davie's story of showing up positive on FL - Do we have data from his and his family's follow up tests? - FL: result, date sample was taken - Antigen: brand and result, date sample was taken - PCR: result, date sample was taken, date result received - We also want the larger data set on follow up tests for positive screens from FL - FL: result, date sample was taken - Antigen: brand and result, date sample was taken - PCR: result, date sample was taken, date result received - Additional information - From Coral Springs Tester - story about 22 positives (is that number right?) - Can we pull data from FL and follow up tests: - FL: result, date sample was taken - Antigen: brand and result, date sample was taken - PCR: result, date sample was taken, date result received - Do we have pics of tubes from those days? - Number trained at CS - Total people trained to run assay at start of program - Total people trained to run at present - Were additional people trained during Omicron surge? - How long did that training take? - What was screening schedule at start of program? - What was screening schedule during surge? - Was there a change in schedule during Delta surge?