Managing the Return to Football During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of the Head Team Physicians of the Football Bowl Subdivision Programs

Methods

Because of the survey nature of the study, as well as the inclusion of anonymous responses, this study was exempt from approval from the institutional review board. The head team orthopaedic surgeons and primary care physicians for the 130 FBS football teams were emailed a survey regarding their opinions on the management of college football athletes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The emails of the head team physicians were available from a previous study conducted by 1 of the lead authors (E.C.M.). For those schools where no email address for their head team physicians was available, this information was queried on the university’s athletic department website. Email addresses for 127 of 130 of the FBS schools’ head team orthopaedic surgeons and 83 of 130 of the head team primary care physicians were obtained. Thirty questions regarding testing, return to play protocols, isolating athletes, etc, were posed to the 2 football head team physicians for each school; the full list of questions is available in the Appendix. For those physicians who did not initially participate, a weekly reminder was sent from June 5 to 19, 2020.

Results

The survey was sent to 127 orthopaedic surgeon team physicians of the 130 FBS programs. In addition, the survey was sent to 83 of the 130 primary care team physicians at the FBS programs. Of the 210 team physicians surveyed, 103 completed the questionnaire, for a 49.0% response rate. Overall, 63 of the 83 primary care team physicians responded to the survey (75.9% response rate) and 40 of the 127 orthopaedic surgeons responded to the survey (31.5% response rate). When asked about their specialty, 40 of the respondents (38.8%) were orthopedic surgeons, 54 (52.4%) were family medicine physicians, 4 (3.9%) were with pediatricians, 3 (2.9%) were internal medicine physicians, and 2 (1.9%) were physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians.

Of the 103 respondents, 65 (63.1%) felt it was safe for college athletes to return to playing football in fall 2020, while 38 (36.9%) felt it was unsafe. The majority of football programs (96.1%) tested athletes for COVID-19 when they returned to campus, while only 78.6% of programs quarantined players when they returned to campus. Of the programs that quarantined their players upon return to campus, 20% did so for 1 week, 20% for 2 weeks, and 32.9% quarantined their athletes until they had a negative COVID-19 test. Nearly 40% of the teams used electrocardiogram screening of their athletes on their return to campus.

When asked about in-season testing, 57.3% of programs recommended using COVID-19 tests to determine playing eligibility. The majority of those programs recommending COVID-19 testing (54.9%) used standard laboratory polymerase chain reaction tests with a 24- to 48-hour turnaround, and 20.2% used a rapid 1-hour (antigen) test, with the rest still undecided on which test to use. Of those programs testing, the vast majority (71.8%) recommended using a nasopharyngeal swab for their tests. Only 23.3% of programs recommended using an antibody (serologic) test to determine playing eligibility. When asked how often the programs recommended testing to determine playing eligibility, the majority of programs performed in-season testing weekly (51.4%), while 17.5% performed tests 2 to 3 times a week. Around 10% tested based upon athletes’ symptoms, and the rest of the programs remained unsure how often they would perform in-season testing. Screening of symptoms is a large component of COVID-19 management; 76.7% of football programs screened athletes for symptoms daily, and 46.6% screened athletes every time they entered athletic facilities (Figure 1). The majority of Division 1 football programs (86.1%) used a combination of questionnaires, self-reporting, and temperature checks to screen their athletes for COVID-19.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Frequency of screening for COVID-19 symptoms.

Although the CDC has been consistent with what temperature constitutes a fever (100.4°F), only 55.3% of the programs used this temperature to determine a fever when screening for COVID-19. When considering what constitutes a close contact with a COVID-19 patient during sports activities, 65% of physicians surveyed defined it as contact within 6 feet for at least 10 minutes, and 16.5% described it as contact within 6 feet for at least 15 minutes, the latter which is the CDC recommendation. If a player exhibited COVID-19 symptoms while on the road, 58.3% of programs had them travel home separately from the team, while 11.7% let the player travel with the team; 4.9% left them with the home team until asymptomatic and 17.8% of programs were still unsure as of the survey date what their policy will be. Players who tested positive for the disease were to remain in isolation for varying times at the different football programs. Of the programs who responded, 5.9% isolated positive players for 1 week, 22.8% of programs isolated for 10 days, and 35.6% isolated for 2 weeks. Some programs made length of isolation contingent on a time frame as well as COVID-19 test results, with 16.8% requiring 2 weeks of isolation plus 2 negative tests, and 15.8% requiring at least 72 hours of isolation in addition to 2 negative tests.

The recommendations for graduated return to play after a positive COVID-19 test in an asymptomatic athlete also differed among the surveyed physicians, with almost 60% of programs letting the athletes return to sports after 2 weeks, 19.4% allowing them to return after 2 negative tests, and 10.9% allowing return after 10 days of being asymptomatic and in quarantine. In addition, before being allowed to play, 87.1% of team physicians performed cardiology screening on the athletes who previously tested positive. There was no real consensus on which cardiac screening needs to be performed in order to allow an athlete to return after a positive COVID-19 test, with most programs choosing a combination of laboratory tests (ie, troponins, C-reactive protein) and advanced testing (ie, echocardiogram or pulmonary function tests) and electrocardiogram.

Programs also varied as to the question of how far back (ie, how many days before the positive test) contact tracing should be recommended. For individuals who had contact with an asymptomatic player who tested positive, contact tracing began from 2 days before (17.5%), 3 days before (29.1%), 1 week before (26.2%), to >10 days before contact (18.4%). For individuals who had contact with a symptomatic player who tested positive, contact tracing was recommended to start 2 days before (19.4%), 3 days before (28.2%), 7 days (31.1%), and >10 days before contact (17.5%). Quarantining of contacts of COVID-positive athletes was recommended for 2 weeks (54.4%), 1 week (13.6%), 10 days (6.8%), or after 2 negative COVID-19 tests (14.6%).

With regard to how many players needed to test positive before the team physicians recommend shutting down team activities, the largest percentage (43%) of team physicians was unsure how many cases would need to arise on their team before they recommended shutting down team activities (Figure 2). Of the respondents, 26% recommended ceasing team activities if 10% of the team were COVID-19 positive, whereas 11% of the respondents each recommended a threshold of 5% or 20%. Increased funding for workplace modifications, testing, and supplies to help combat COVID-19 was only noted to have occurred at 75.2% of the athletic departments surveyed.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Percentage of team physicians recommending suspension of team activities after positive COVID-19 thresholds of 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 30% of the team.

Discussion

The primary finding of this survey of NCAA Division I football team physicians was that 63.1% of respondents felt that it was safe for college athletes to return to football for the fall 2020 season. As professional, collegiate, high school, and recreational sports continue to discuss various components of return-to-play protocols, the central issue is first and foremost the safety and well-being of the athletes, coaches, referees, and other individuals with whom the athletes come into contact in the university setting (classmates, volunteers, etc). In the current study, nearly two-thirds of respondents felt that returning to Division I collegiate football in the fall of 2020 was safe. It is important to note that this survey was conducted between June 5 and June 19, 2020, and the attitudes of the team physicians could have changed and could continue to change as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves throughout the country or region.

At the start of the pandemic, the NCAA halted all collegiate sports and cancelled winter and spring championships in March 2020. Since that time, the NCAA has published guidance but no binding legislation on rules and regulations for returning to athletics. Therefore, many team physicians, athletic trainers, and school administrators are communicating with one another to establish protocols and best practices to mitigate risk and attempt to return to sports in the safest possible manner. To that end, the current survey of team physicians for NCAA Division I football was conducted in order to establish a set of norms, gauge current attitudes, and identify areas of disparity or lack of consensus.

One area of strong agreement was the need for protective procedures upon athlete return to campus. Nearly all team physicians indicated that they will test athletes for COVID-19 as they arrive back on campus (96%). Nearly 80% stated that athletes will be initially quarantined upon arrival in order to clarify COVID-19 status for individual athletes, mitigate risk of potential infection of teammates, and mitigate risk of exposure and spread within the university community at large. While the recommendation for quarantine and testing was nearly universal, there was less agreement on the duration of quarantine and need for ancillary testing. Current NCAA recommendations and CDC guidelines are not clear or definitive in this area, and there is an identified need for further study in this regard. Our study found that 20% of the programs will quarantine their athletes for 1 week, 20% for 2 weeks, and 32.9% will quarantine their athletes until they have a negative COVID-19 test. Since it can take up to 12.5 days from transmission of the virus to a positive test, ⁷ the CDC recommends quarantining individuals for at least 14 days after exposure.

Once the season begins, the challenge of maintaining safety and mitigating risk only increases as teams travel to different cities, states, and geographic regions to participate in games. Athletic departments and conferences have worked to establish protocols with this challenge in mind. However, the novel coronavirus represents an ever-evolving and difficult threat. There is little agreement from team physicians with respect to in-season recommendations. There is near equivalence on the issue of in-season testing, with 57.3% of respondents stating that antigen testing should be conducted in order to determine playing eligibility. While the majority of team physicians state that their teams will use a nasopharyngeal swab for specimen collection, the timing of the testing during the competitive season will not be uniform, with approximately half performing tests with a 24- to 48-hour turnaround for results and less than half recommending weekly testing to determine competition eligibility. Since the incubation time for the COVID-19 virus can be almost 2 weeks, weekly testing is likely to miss some players who might have contracted the virus before the testing but will not test positive for COVID-19. Therefore, because most of the antigen testing for COVID-19 is very sensitive (low false-negatives), ⁴ most conferences are now recommending at least a bi- or tri-weekly screening during competition with the advent of cost-effective rapid screening. If more frequent, inexpensive testing, such as loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) testing, is feasible from a financial and logistical standpoint, this would be preferable to catch the athletes as soon as they test positive in order to remove them from the team isolation bubble.

Three-fourths of team physicians recommended daily symptom monitoring and screening of athletes in order to monitor for possible COVID-19 infection. Most team physicians will use a combination of self-reporting, temperature checks, and questionnaires to do this monitoring. Approximately 55% of respondents will use 100.4°F as a temperature cutoff for fever. Nearly 30% will use 100.0°F. Current CDC recommendations state that a temperature threshold of ≥100.4°F should be utilized for symptom screening. Therefore, even though nearly 45% of the programs will not use this temperature for screening, we recommend the CDC guideline be used in the determination of a fever.

A topic of considerable challenge, debate, and discussion is that of defining a close contact within the context of football. The CDC provides clear guidance on what constitutes a close contact, but how those guidelines translate into a football environment is unknown. For example, the use of masks in the context of football remains a topic of debate, as the parameters for a close contact have yet to be unanimously defined. Because of the intense physical activity that occurs during sports, wearing a respiratory mask during games might not be a feasible option for some athletes, as it is well understood that facemasks induce hypercapnia and hypoxia during aerobically demanding activities. ² However, it should be noted that because there are some positions that are less aerobically demanding than others, mask adherence may be position-dependent and should not be discouraged in the athletes who wish to wear them. Additionally, although some players such as linemen may only be engaged for a matter of seconds during any given play, bodily secretions such as sweat and saliva will likely be exchanged. Whether this situation should be considered “close contact” remains unclear because the players are not within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents stated that their definition of a close contact will be closer than 6 feet for 10 minutes, even though the CDC defined this as 6 feet for more than 15 minutes. Since most college football players have a roommate to whom they are often in close proximity, it was nearly unanimous that roommates would be considered close contacts. Less universal was the point at which contact tracing should begin after a player has tested positive. Responses ranged from 2 days before a positive test of asymptomatic patients to as long as 2 weeks. For symptomatic players, nearly one-third of respondents recommend contact tracing for 3 days before the onset of symptoms, another one-third recommend 7 days, with the remaining one-third recommending of a range from 2 days to 14 days.

Similarly, there was no consensus on the amount of time that close contacts should be quarantined. Approximately half or respondents chose 2 weeks for this time frame, but there was again a wide range of timelines provided, with some respondents also incorporating a negative COVID-19 test in order to clear quarantine. Again, since the incubation period of COVID-19 is almost 2 weeks, ⁷ we recommend following the CDC guidelines and quarantining athletes exposed to a positive player for 2 weeks. Because nearly all football players are in close contact to one another, it might be considered prudent to spot test all of the team if a player tests positive through an interaction with another member of the team. However, only one-third of respondents recommended spot testing if a player tests positive.

Another unknown was what to do with an athlete who becomes symptomatic or tests positive for COVID-19 while traveling for an away game. Most respondents (58.3%) would not allow the player to travel back to their home institution with the rest of the team, with only 12% of team physicians stating that they would allow the player to travel back with the team. The ideal logistics of how and when to allow travel back home remain unclear, which is reflected in many of the team physicians responding that they do not have a plan for this contingency.

A considerable challenge remains with respect to return to play after COVID-19 infection. Optimal duration of isolation, time to safely return to play, additional laboratory tests, and diagnostic testing all remain unclear in the context of football participation. Recently, the American College of Cardiology published an expert opinion paper outlining return-to-play protocols and strategies after a confirmed COVID-19 infection. ¹ This paper included a recommendation for a minimum 2-week rest period for COVID-19 positive athletes, with additional cardiopulmonary testing and laboratory screenings depending on presence or absence of symptoms, as well as symptom severity. The authors acknowledged a key limitation of their position paper ¹ and advised additional study: “Given the clinical uncertainty regarding the prevalence and magnitude of post-infectious complications, we acknowledge that our proposed approach is conservative and subject to change when the prevalence of cardiac injury in non-hospitalized athletes is better defined.” Our survey demonstrated considerable disagreement among respondents with regard to the duration of isolation for asymptomatic COVID-19 positive athletes, how soon return to play can safely occur after a positive COVID-19 test in an asymptomatic player, and which laboratory screenings and tests should be conducted before a player is allowed to return. Additionally, recommendations have been made clear regarding cardiac clearance for symptomatic athletes after testing positive for COVID-19. ⁵ While most expert opinions and NCAA recommendations outline graded return to play after COVID-19 infection, the specifics of such a protocol are unclear and lack evidence-based foundations. The results of the current survey reflect these current limitations.

Finally, there was also significant disparity on what percentage of the roster would need to test positive before a team should cease all organized team activities. The most common answer to this question was “undecided” (43%); however, 25.2% of respondents stated this would have to be over 10% of the team, and 10.7% answered it would have to be 5% of the team. With a football roster of over 100 players, this would need to be 10 to 20 players. Several programs have already shut down their team activities with even less than this owing to concerns of increased risk of disease transmission.

This survey is not without limitations. As with any survey, this paper only represents the survey respondents’ attitudes towards COVID-19 at the time of the survey. However, we feel that these data provide a good baseline for how to deal with COVID-19 and other potentially virulent pandemics in the future. Most of the questions still apply to the treatment and management of COVID-19, especially with those sports who are just beginning to compete, such as winter sports. Additionally, many smaller universities are still dealing with how to bring back athletes to their campuses and allow them to compete. This snapshot of the attitudes of team physicians can help reiterate how complex the treatment of athletes is and give individual team physicians some idea of what other programs are doing to help them manage returning athletes/competing athletes.

Additionally, the current COVID-19 global pandemic has seen rapidly evolving scenarios and challenges, and the topic of return to sports is no different. At the time of this survey, infection rates and total confirmed cases in the United States were somewhat stable. However, since conclusion of the survey, infection rates in the southern United States, in the “Sunbelt Region,” had increased significantly. This has led to increased caution by government officials with regard to local policies, but the same response is also likely with team physicians as it pertains to safe participation in college athletics. Another limitation is that while this survey was distributed to all head orthopaedic surgeons and primary care team physicians for all FBS football programs, not all physicians responded. However, the total response of 103 team physicians is likely to be representative of the group as a whole, as this constituted nearly half of the overall cohort and because responses were received from diverse geographic locations, conference affiliations, and program profiles. Finally, while the stratification of survey responses by specialty may have helped identify varying attitudes between fields (primary care vs orthopaedics), the low response rate and sample size was too small to have significant meaning.

Conclusion

As with so much of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is much unknown and much to still learn. Although the CDC guidelines evolve and geographic regions experience a range of COVID-19 infections, determining a universal strategy for the return to socialization and participation in sports remains a challenge. The current study highlights areas of consensus and strong agreement, but it also demonstrates a need for clarity and consistency in operations, leadership, and guidance for medical professionals in multiple areas as they attempt to safely mitigate risk for college football players amid the COVID-19 pandemic.