A Program Evaluation of a Sick Child Day-Care Facility

1989 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi A. Alexander ◽  
Michael C. Roberts ◽  
Steven Prentice-Dunn
1990 ◽  
Vol 155 (12) ◽  
pp. 610-612
Author(s):  
Michael L. Noel ◽  
Susan J. Brickey ◽  
Peter F. Hoffman

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 521-521
Author(s):  
MARVIN L. AUERBACK

To the Editor.— Dr Furman raises a number of issues about potential hazards of hospital-based sick child day care. She is worried about nosocomial infection and the two-way spread of disease between the "healthy ill" in the sick day care program, and the really ill hospital inpatients. So far, I have found practically no real evidence that such a risk exists. Her concern about spread of infection to compromised children (eg, immunosuppressed children) would be true if sick care centers were to be established in tertiary care or university hospitals.


Author(s):  
Beate Heeg ◽  
Thomas Strzalka ◽  
Norbert Bender

In Germany there have been intense discussions about measles vaccination and, as a consequence, the “Law for the Protection against Measles and for Strengthening Vaccination Prevention (Measles Protection Act)” was passed. The Measles Protection Act has now been in force since 1 March 2020 and has far-reaching consequences for day-care centres for two reasons. First, children and staff in day-care centres must prove that they have been vaccinated against measles before being admitted to the centre. Second, day-care facilities are obliged to notify the local health authority if sufficient proof of measles vaccination is not provided for a child in the day-care facility. This shift in responsibility for the control of the vaccination status poses a great threat to the relationship of trust between parents and educational staff.


1990 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
KRISTINE L. MACDONALD ◽  
KAREN A. WHITE ◽  
JUANITA HEISER ◽  
LINDA GABRIEL ◽  
MICHAEL T. OSTERHOLM

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuno Lunet ◽  
Bárbara Peleteiro ◽  
Joana Bastos ◽  
Sofia Correia ◽  
Ana Marinho ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tulio Konstantyner ◽  
Thais Cláudia Roma de Oliveira Konstantyner ◽  
Maysa Helena Aguiar Toloni ◽  
Giovana Longo-Silva ◽  
José Augusto de Aguiar Carrazedo Taddei

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 460-463
Author(s):  
David E. Nelson ◽  
Jeffrey J. Sacks ◽  
David G. Addiss

The authors analyzed data from a national survey of 2003 directors of licensed child day-care centers to determine employee smoking policies, measure compliance with state and local employee smoking regulations for child day-care centers and state clean indoor air laws, and to estimate the extent of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in these settings. Forty states regulated employee smoking in child day-care centers, but only three states required day-care centers to be smoke-free indoors. More than 99% of licensed child day-care centers had employee smoking policies that complied with the appropriate state or local smoking regulations. Nearly 55% of centers were smoke-free indoors and outdoors, and 26% were smoke-free indoors only. The best predictors of more stringent employee smoking policies were location in the West or South, smaller size, independent ownership, or having written smoking policies. Despite the presence of strong smoking policies at the majority of licensed child day-care centers, more than 752000 children in the United States are at risk for environmental tobacco smoke exposure in these settings. Health care professionals and parents should insist that child day-care centers be smoke-free indoors and, preferably, smoke-free indoors and outdoors.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 991-994
Author(s):  
Jonathan B. Kotch ◽  
Ann H. Faircloth ◽  
Kristen A. Weigle ◽  
David J. Weber ◽  
Richard M. Clifford ◽  
...  

The growing use of child day-care centers (CDCCs) has produced a significant rise in morbidity due to infectious diseases which carry such consequences as discomfort, disability, and parental anxiety.1,2 Haskins conservatively estimated the cost of day-care illnesses among children to be $1.8 billion.3 To this must be added the cost of parents' and care givers' excess illness attributable to CDCCs. No published study describes a successful intervention to reduce the risk of upper respiratory disease in CDCCs. Although many research groups have advocated hand washing and diapering hygiene as a means of reducing the spread of enteric disease in CDCCs,4-11 there are only two controlled studies in the literature. In their pioneering work, Black et al showed the incidence of diarrhea in CDCCs following a rigorously monitored hand-washing program to be nearly twice that in intervention centers.12 Bartlett et al monitored the impact of hand washing in randomly assigned CDCCs and found no intervention effect. However, rates of diarrhea were significantly lower among children in the actively monitored centers regardless of intervention status.13 These studies share several limitations: the sources of incidence data were not blinded to center intervention status, the analyses did not statistically control for potential confounders, and non-independence of multiple diarrhea episodes in the same child were not accounted for. The purposes of our study were to develop a feasible, multicomponent hygienic intervention and to carefully measure its impact while controlling for sources of bias. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or any of the other co-sponsors of this conference.


2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.I. Gallimore ◽  
M.A.B. Barreiros ◽  
D.W.G. Brown ◽  
J.P. Nascimento ◽  
J.P.G. Leite

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document