Cholera Risk Assessment, Control, and Prevention

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-33
Author(s):  
Fengfeng Liu ◽  
Biao Kan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Control And Prevention

Common Organisms Responsible for Healthcare-associated Infection (HCAI)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Jacob ◽  
Martina N. Cummins
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Local Policy ◽  
Healthcare Associated Infection ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
Beta Lactam Antibiotics ◽  
Patient Admissions ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Infectious Waste

MRSA are S. aureus which become methicillin resistant by the acquisition of the mec A gene which is on a mobile chromosomal determinant called staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCC mec). The mec A gene encodes for a penicillin- binding protein (PBP2a) which has a low affinity for isoxazolyl-penicillins (MICs to oxacillin/ meticillin ≥ 4μg/ ml) and is resistant to all classes of beta-lactam antibiotics. Current Department of Health (DOH) guidance (2014) recommends that mandatory MRSA screening be streamlined to include only: ● All patient admissions to high- risk units; ● Healthcare workers; and ● All patients previously identified as colonized or infected with MRSA. The guidance also advises Trusts to follow local risk assessment policies to identify other potential high- risk units or units with a history of high endemicity of MRSA; and The guidance also recommends regular auditing of compliance with MRSA screening policy. The 2006 guideline for the control and prevention of MRSA in healthcare facilities recommends the following four measures. ● Isolation MRSA- positive patients should be nursed in a single room or if none is available, cohorting into a bay after risk assessment. Patient movement, and the number of staff and visitors looking after the patient, should be minimized. ● Hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) All staff and visitors should decontaminate their hands with soap and water/or an alcohol rub before and after contact with the patient or their immediate surroundings. Single-use disposable gloves and aprons/non- permeable gowns should be used by staff and visitors if there is a risk of contamination with body fluids. ● Disposal of waste and laundry All waste from colonized/ infected patients should be placed in the infectious waste stream. All linen and bedding from patients colonized/infected with MRSA should be considered as contaminated and processed as infected linen. ● Cleaning and decontamination The patient’s room should be cleaned/disinfected daily with an appropriate detergent/disinfectant as per local policy. On discharge of the patient, the room needs to be terminally cleaned before it is reused. All patient equipment should either be single-patient use or be cleaned, disinfected, and sterilized.

scholarly journals Tracking the Differentiation of Risk: The Impact of Subject Framing in CDC Communication Regarding COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-100
Author(s):  
Kathryn Lambrecht
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Important Decision ◽  
Public Risk ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Centers For Disease Control ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Communicating Risk ◽  
Decision Making Tool

Communicating risk amid moments of scientific ambiguity requires balance: Overdelivering certainty levels can cause undue alarm whereas underdelivering them can lead to increased public risk. Despite this complexity, risk assessment is an important decision-making tool. This article analyzes the circulation of the term “risk” in a corpus (74,804 words) of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention communications regarding COVID-19 from January 1 to April 30, 2020. Tracking collocations of the 147 instances of risk in this corpus reveals that experts initially framed risk away from individuals, complicating people’s differentiation between public and personal impacts. Recommendations are offered for how institutions can reframe subjectivity to promote vigilance during pandemics.

Using Risk Assessment as Part of a Systems Approach to the Control and Prevention of HPAIV H5N1

EcoHealth ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Solenne Costard ◽  
Guillaume Fournié ◽  
Dirk Udo Pfeiffer
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Control And Prevention

Risk Assessment for Biological Agents in the Laboratory

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 99-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard C. Knudsen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Biological Agents ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Rational Basis ◽  
Biological Safety ◽  
National Symposium ◽  
Qualitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Control And Prevention

Risk assessments for using biological agents in the laboratory are qualitative rather than quantitative. A number of risk factors for performing the assessment are identified and discussed in terms of information needed and assessment. A process for performing a qualitative risk assessment for biological agents in the laboratory is presented with an example. This article was presented at the 5th National Symposium on Biosafety held in Atlanta, Georgia on January 17–20, 1998. The Symposium was sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Biological Safety Association (ABSA). Reprinted from Rational Basis for Biocontainment Proceedings, ABSA, pp. 56–65.

Development of a Screening Tool for Prediction of Children at Risk for Lead Exposure in a Midwestern Clinical Setting

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenda L. Rooney ◽  
Brian K. Allen ◽  
Pamela J. Strutt ◽  
Edward B. Hayes
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Blood Lead ◽  
Selective Screening ◽  
Children At Risk ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Lead Levels ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Elevated Blood Lead Levels

Objective. Universal screening for childhood lead poisoning is becoming quite common, with many states having legislation requiring screening. We set out to determine whether a questionnaire could be used to identify children at risk for exposure to lead to determine whether selective screening of those at risk was possible. Methods. Parents of 370 children 12 to 36 months of age having well-child examinations completed a questionnaire and their children were screened by a fingerstick capillary blood lead test at two clinics. Results. Of patients from clinic A, 5.4% had lead levels ≥10 µg/dL compared with 16.8% of those from clinic B (P < .001). This difference between clinics could not be explained by the demographic characteristics of the patients or by differences in their potential exposures to lead. We evaluated the five questions suggested by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for anticipatory guidance for their ability to identify children with elevated blood lead levels. In clinic A, this instrument had a sensitivity of 76.9% and a negative predictive value of 96.5%. In clinic B, it had a sensitivity of 63.6% and a negalive predictive value of 81.4% . Based on an assessment of significant items from a large questionnaire, we determined five questions that were the best predictors of risk. On the basis of this risk assessment, 100% of the children from clinic A with elevated lead levels and 90.9% of the children from clinic B with elevated lead levels were classified as being at "high risk." Had this risk assessment been used as an initial screen in this sample, 40% of the patients from clinic A and 37% of the patients from clinic B would not have been screened with a blood lead test, because they were classified as being at "low risk." Conclusions. Results of this study suggest that there is great variability in the prevalence of elevated lead levels and potential risks between clinics within a fairly homogeneous community; however, selective screening with a community-specific questionnaire may be feasible if the prevalence is low and the risks to the population are known.

Risk assessment in dentistry

1998 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. 756-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
CW Douglass
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment

The Speech-Language Pathologists' Role in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury for Middle and High School–Age Children: Viewpoints on Guidelines From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 1363-1370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Brown ◽  
Katy O'Brien ◽  
Kelly Knollman-Porter ◽  
Tracey Wallace
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Centers For Disease Control

Purpose The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released guidelines for rehabilitation professionals regarding the care of children with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Given that mTBI impacts millions of children each year and can be particularly detrimental to children in middle and high school age groups, access to universal recommendations for management of postinjury symptoms is ideal. Method This viewpoint article examines the CDC guidelines and applies these recommendations directly to speech-language pathology practices. In particular, education, assessment, treatment, team management, and ongoing monitoring are discussed. In addition, suggested timelines regarding implementation of services by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are provided. Specific focus is placed on adolescents (i.e., middle and high school–age children). Results SLPs are critical members of the rehabilitation team working with children with mTBI and should be involved in education, symptom monitoring, and assessment early in the recovery process. SLPs can also provide unique insight into the cognitive and linguistic challenges of these students and can serve to bridge the gap among rehabilitation and school-based professionals, the adolescent with brain injury, and their parents. Conclusion The guidelines provided by the CDC, along with evidence from the field of speech pathology, can guide SLPs to advocate for involvement in the care of adolescents with mTBI. More research is needed to enhance the evidence base for direct assessment and treatment with this population; however, SLPs can use their extensive knowledge and experience working with individuals with traumatic brain injury as a starting point for post-mTBI care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document