ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Screening for tuberculosis: the port of arrival scheme compared with screening in general practice and the homeless

G H Bothamley^1,3, J P Rowan¹, C J Griffiths^2,3, M Beeks², M McDonald², E Beasley², C van den Bosch⁴, G Feder^2,3

¹ East London Tuberculosis Service, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Homerton Hospital, London E9 6SR, UK
² Lower Clapton Group Practice, 36 Lower Clapton Road, London E5 0PD, UK
³ St Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London E1 4NS, UK
⁴ Department of Public Health, ELCHA, 81–91 Commercial Road, London E1 1RD, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr G H Bothamley, St Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London E1 4NS, UK;
graham.bothamley{at}homerton.nhs.uk

Background: Tuberculosis is increasing in London, especially in those recently entering the UK from an area of high incidence. Screening through the port of arrival scheme has a poor yield and has been considered discriminatory.

Methods: A study was undertaken to compare the yield and costs of screening new entrants in a hospital based new entrants' clinic (1262 referrals from the port of arrival), general practice (1311 new registrations), and centres for the homeless (267 individuals) using a symptom questionnaire and tuberculin testing if indicated. Clinical outcome measures were cases of tuberculosis, tuberculin reactors requiring chemoprophylaxis and BCG vaccinations. Cost outcomes were cost per individual screened and cost per individual per case of tuberculosis prevented.

Results: Verbal screening limited tuberculin testing to 16% of those in general practice; most were tested at the other two locations. Intervention (BCG vaccination, chemoprophylaxis or treatment) occurred in 27% of those who received tuberculin testing. Attendance for screening was 17% of the port of arrival notifications (63% had registered with a GP), 54% in primary care, and 67% in the homeless (42% registered with a GP). Costs for screening an individual in general practice, hostels for the homeless, and the new entrants' clinic were £1.26, £13.17 and £96.36, respectively, while the cost per person screened per case of tuberculosis prevented was £6.32, £23.00, and £10.00, respectively. The benefit of screening was highly sensitive to the number of cases of tuberculosis identified and case holding during treatment.

Conclusion: Screening for tuberculosis in primary care is feasible and could replace hospital screening of new arrivals for those registered with a GP.

Keywords: tuberculosis; screening; port of arrival; general practice

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Klinkenberg, E., Manissero, D., Semenza, J. C., Verver, S. (2009). Migrant tuberculosis screening in the EU/EEA: yield, coverage and limitations. Eur Respir J 34: 1180-1189 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Prost, A, Griffiths, C J, Anderson, J, Wight, D, Hart, G J (2009). Feasibility and acceptability of offering rapid HIV tests to patients registering with primary care in London (UK): a pilot study. Sex. Transm. Infect. 85: 326-329 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bothamley, G. H., Ditiu, L., Migliori, G. B., Lange, C., TBNET contributors, (2008). Active case finding of tuberculosis in Europe: a Tuberculosis Network European Trials Group (TBNET) survey. Eur Respir J 32: 1023-1030 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Erkens, C., Slump, E., Kamphorst, M., Keizer, S., van Gerven, P. J. H. J., Bwire, R., Berkel, M., Borgdorff, M. W., Verver, S. (2008). Coverage and yield of entry and follow-up screening for tuberculosis among new immigrants. Eur Respir J 32: 153-161 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Wang, Y., Taegtmeyer, M., Squire, S.B., Theobald, S.J. (2008). Review Series: The Politics of TB: TB control services need tailoring for new arrivals, not vice versa. Chronic Respiratory Disease 5: 49-51 [Abstract]  
• Anderson, S. R, Maguire, H., Carless, J. (2007). Tuberculosis in London: a decade and a half of no decline. Thorax 62: 162-167 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Schoch, O. D., Rieder, P., Tueller, C., Altpeter, E., Zellweger, J.-P., Rieder, H. L., Krause, M., Thurnheer, R. (2007). Diagnostic Yield of Sputum, Induced Sputum, and Bronchoscopy after Radiologic Tuberculosis Screening. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 175: 80-86 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Brewin, P., Jones, A., Kelly, M., McDonald, M., Beasley, E., Sturdy, P., Bothamley, G., Griffiths, C. (2006). Is screening for tuberculosis acceptable to immigrants? A qualitative study. J Public Health (Oxf) 28: 253-260 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Welshman, J. (2006). Compulsion, Localism, and Pragmatism: The Micro-Politics of Tuberculosis Screening in the United Kingdom, 1950-1965. Soc Hist Med 19: 295-312 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Coker, R., Bell, A., Pitman, R., Zellweger, J-P., Heldal, E., Hayward, A., Skulberg, A., Bothamley, G., Whitfield, R., de Vries, G., Watson, J. M. (2006). Tuberculosis screening in migrants in selected European countries shows wide disparities.. Eur Respir J 27: 801-807 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Crimi, P., Macrina, G., Saettone, F., Turello, W., Ramorino, P., Gasparini, R., Crovari, P. (2005). Epidemiological trend in tuberculosis in the Italian region of Liguria: Impact of immigration and AIDS. Eur J Public Health 15: 339-342 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Barker, R D, Glyn-Jones, J, Bothamley, G (2003). DOT for all patients with smear-positive pulmonary TB in London?. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 57: 231-231 [Full Text]  
• Barker, R D, Glyn-Jones, J, Bothamley, G (2003). DOT for all patients with smear-positive pulmonary TB in London?. Thorax 58: 91-91 [Full Text]