Tag: CDC

Who Do We Blame Now?

Oct 27, 2014• 5

By TAMAR LASKY

The recent Ebola cases and fatality have triggered a collective process of finger pointing as we struggle to understand events and hold someone accountable.

Hence, the television footage of health officials hauled off to Congress, accusatory headlines (“Alarming stumbles by the C.D.C.”) and appointment of czars. In the desire to pin the blame somewhere, notably the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we overlook the essential fact that in the United States public health responsibilities are fragmented among federal agencies, and decentralized throughout state and local government. The laws and regulations governing public health activities at federal, state and local levels is truly wonky terrain, but understanding these details is critical to being able to improve our response to public health emergencies. We need to know who actually has the authority to deal with specific public health functions and who should be held accountable (spoiler alert – it is not the Czar, nor the Secretary at DHHS, nor the Surgeon General, nor the Director of CDC). Often, it is a state health official, local health official or professional organization.Continue reading…

Update on CDC Guidelines on Ebola Specimen Handling + Lab Testing

Oct 23, 2014• 1

By THCBist

In response to several reader questions on the CDC post on safe handling of Ebola and recommended lab procedures, the CDC got back to us with this update:

In the Ebola guidance for healthcare workers and specifically for Specimen Handling for Routine Laboratory Testing of persons under investigation (PUI) for Ebola disease , CDC reminds all laboratory personnel to consider all blood and body fluids as potentially infectious. The guidance further informs laboratory personnel that strict adherence to the OSHA bloodborne pathogen regulations and Standard Precautions protects laboratory workers from bloodborne pathogens, including Ebola. In this guidance, emphasis is placed on the OSHA regulation’s requirement for performance of site-specific risk assessments. These assessments should consider the path of the sample throughout the laboratory, including all work processes and procedures, to identify potential exposure risks and to mitigate the risks by implementing engineering controls, administrative controls (including work practices), and appropriate PPE to protect laboratory personnel. Implementation of these recommendations requires that there is designated staff that is trained, competent, and confident in performing risk assessments within their laboratories.

Continue reading…

The Antifragile CDC

Oct 20, 2014• 9

By SAURABH JHA, MD

Some years ago I was in Australia’s Northern Territory. The intrepid explorer that I was, I was croc-spotting from the comfortable heights of a bridge over the East Alligator River. The river derives its name because it is east of something. And because it’s croc-infested.

I was reading a story about a German tourist (it’s usually a German) who was attacked by a saltwater crocodile in the vicinity (1). The story concluded to reassure that one is more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a saltwater crocodile.

I imagined what the apotheosis of a left brain thinker, the data-driven Renaissance man, might have done with that statistic. Might he have peeked in to the East Alligator River looking for a vending machine and seeing none, jumped right in?

This empirical fact is useful if you suffer from croc-phobia and live in the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and the biggest voyage you ever plan to undertake is to the Hamptons. But it’s not terribly useful, and marginally harmful, if you’re deciding whether to kayak rivers in Northern Australia.

The vending machine has reared its deadly head again. It seems that more Americans have been killed by vending machines than have died from Ebola. Well let’s head to Liberia for the winter, because there are fewer vending machines there.

Sorry, I jest. But this is not a joke. Some actually think this is a relevant statistic to put Ebola in perspective. And some are actually reassured by it!

Statement from the Dallas Nurses

Oct 16, 2014• 4

By NATIONAL NURSES UNITED

When Thomas Eric Duncan first came into the hospital, he arrived with an elevated temperature, but was sent home.

On his return visit to the hospital, he was brought in by ambulance under the suspicion from him and family members that he may have Ebola.

Mr. Duncan was left for several hours, not in isolation, in an area where other patients were present.

No one knew what the protocols were or were able to verify what kind of personal protective equipment should be worn and there was no training.

Subsequently a nurse supervisor arrived and demanded that he be moved to an isolation unit– yet faced resistance from other hospital authorities.

Lab specimens from Mr. Duncan were sent through the hospital tube system without being specially sealed and hand delivered. The result is that the entire tube system by which all lab specimens are sent was potentially contaminated.Continue reading…

Angry Nurses Tell of Ebola Patient’s arrival at Texas Hospital

Oct 15, 2014• 125

By THCBist

A group of nurses at Texas Health Presbyterian has come forward with a very different picture of what happened when Liberian Ebola patient Thomas Duncan arrived at the hospital with Ebola-like symptoms on September 28th. If true, the allegations are certainly unsettling.

In an unusual move, the nurses spoke anonymously to the media, conducting a blind conference call in which none of the participants were identified.

After arriving at the emergency room with a high fever and other symptoms of the disease , the nurses said the patient was kept in a public area, despite the fact that he and a relative informed staff that he had been instructed to go to the hospital after contacting the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta to report a possible case of Ebola.

Hospital at Center of Ebola Outbreak Reverses Its Story

Oct 6, 2014• 19

By THCBist

The Dallas hospital at the center of the Texas Ebola outbreak has changed its story.

Last Thursday, the hospital blamed a poorly designed electronic medical record for the failure to diagnose Duncan when he arrived at the hospital’s emergency room with symptoms consistent with Ebola, including a fever, stomach cramps and headache. According to the initial story, a badly designed electronic health record workflow made it difficult for doctors to see details of Duncan’s West African travel. Duncan was sent home. Very bad things happened as a result, as we all know by now.

On Friday, the hospital reversed itself without explanation.

The new statement:

Clarification: We would like to clarify a point made in the statement released earlier in the week. As a standard part of the nursing process, the patient’s travel history was documented and available to the full care team in the electronic health record (EHR), including within the physician’s workflow. There was no flaw in the EHR in the way the physician and nursing portions interacted related to this event. [ Full text ]

In other words: The EMR didn’t do it.

When the EMR story came out Thursday, critics jumped all over it. It did sort of make sense to some people, especially people who aren’t fans of electronic medical records. The idea that a piece of key information could get lost in the maze of screens and pop ups and clicks in a complex medical record sounded plausible.

A lot of other people weren’t buying it:

The swiftness of the hasty retreat led some critics to speculate that Texas Health’s statement Thursday provoked the wrath of EPIC, the hospital’s EMR vendor. Industry critics pointed out that many major EMR vendors, EPIC among them, often include strongly worded clauses in contracts that forbids customers from talking publicly about their products.

After this story was posted, EPIC contacted THCB with a response via email. Company spokesman Shawn Kieseau wrote:

We have no gag clauses in our contracts. We had no legal input or participation in our root cause analysis discussions with Texas Health staff on this issue. Texas Health’s correction is appropriate given the facts in this situation.

The Ebola Outbreak: The CDC Director’s Guidance for Health care workers

Sep 30, 2014• 52

By Tom Frieden, MD

There has been a lot of fear about Ebola. The health care workers who care for Ebola patients are right to be concerned – and they should use that concern to increase their awareness and motivation to practice meticulous infection control measures.

Ebola virus is transmitted through direct contact with bodily fluids of an infected person who is sick with Ebola, or exposure to objects, such as needles, that have been contaminated with infected secretions.

Travel from Affected Region

There is a risk for Ebola to be introduced to the United States via an infected traveler from Africa. If that were to happen, widespread transmission in the United States is highly unlikely due to our systematic use of strict and standard infection control precautions in health care settings, although a cluster of cases is possible if patients are not quickly isolated. Community spread is unlikely due to differences in cultural practices, such as in West Africa where community and family members handle their dead.

CDC has advised all travelers arriving from Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone to monitor their health for 21 days and watch for fever or other symptoms consistent with Ebola. If they develop symptoms, they should call ahead to their hospital or health care provider and report their symptoms and recent travel to the affected areas so appropriate precautions can be taken.

CDC Laboratory Guidance on Ebola

Aug 20, 2014• 15

By Tom Frieden, MD

For more than four decades, Ebola virus had only been diagnosed in central or eastern Africa.

Then late this past March, the first cases of Ebola began appearing in a surprising part of the continent. The Ministry of Health in Guinea notified WHO of a rapidly evolving outbreak of Ebola virus disease. The outbreak in Guinea was the first sign the virus had made the jump across the continent.

Ebola then spread quickly to Sierra Leone and Liberia, and then to Nigeria.

As the world learned of the cases, CDC began receiving questions from American hospital labs. They were looking for guidance on how to handle testing for patients who had recently returned to the U.S. from West Africa with potential Ebola symptoms.

If U.S. hospitals were to run laboratory tests on these patients, how could they be sure their staff could safely handle materials that might contain this dangerous virus? Did they need the kind of personal protective equipment they saw CDC scientists using when they were testing for Ebola?

Electronic Cigarettes: What’s in the Vapors?

Jun 30, 2014• 5

By Maciej Goniewicz

Users and non-users of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have many legitimate questions about these nicotine-delivery devices. E-cigarettes represent a nearly $2-billion-a-year industry, and one that’s growing exponentially. The number of young people trying e-cigarettes doubled from 2011 to 2012, according to the Centers for Disease Control. So it is natural that so many people are interested in the health consequences of using e-cigarettes.

Research from the Department of Health Behavior at Roswell Park Cancer Institute has documented the impact of first-, second- and third-hand exposure to e-cigarette vapors. Our most recent research, done in collaboration with scientists from the Medical University of Silesia in Poland, offers insight into the user’s exposure to carcinogenic carbonyls.

The e-liquids used in e-cigarettes are primarily composed of glycerin and propylene glycol. We set out to find out what chemicals are generated during use of e-cigarettes, particularly at variable voltages. Some devices allow the user to adjust the voltage to increase vapor production and nicotine delivery.

We found that when e-cigarettes were operated at lower voltages, the vapors that were generated contained only traces of some toxic chemicals. These chemicals included the carbonyls formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetone. However, when the voltage was increased, the levels of these toxicants also significantly increased.

The novel finding of our study is that the higher the voltage, the higher the levels of carbonyls. Increasing battery output voltage leads to higher temperature of the heating element inside the e-cigarette. Increasing the voltage from 3.2 to 4.8 volts resulted in increases of anywhere from 4 times to more than 200 times the exposure to formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acetone. The levels of formaldehyde in vapors from high-voltage devices were similar to those found in tobacco smoke.

Where Are The Hot Spots For Antibiotic Resistance?

Jun 24, 2014• 16

By TOM FRIEDEN, MD

In July, CDC will roll out a new way every hospital in the country can track and control drug resistant bacteria.CDC already operates the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), with more than 12,000 health care facilities participating. Now we are implementing a breakthrough program that will take control of drug resistance to the next level – the Antibiotic Use and Resistance (AUR) reporting module. The module is fully automated, capturing antibiotic prescriptions and drug susceptibility test results electronically.

With this module, we’ll be able to create the first antibiotic prescribing index. This index will help benchmark antibiotic use across health care facilities for the first time, allowing facilities to compare their data with similar facilities. It will help facilities and local and state health departments as well as CDC to identify hot spots within a city or a region.

We’ll be able to answer the questions: Which facilities are prescribing more antibiotics? How many types of resistant bacteria and fungi are they seeing? Do prescribing practices predict the number of resistant infections and outbreaks a facility will face? Ultimately with this information, we’ll be able to both improve prescribing practices and identify and stop outbreaks in a way we have never done before.

This will help deploy supportive and evidence-based interventions at each facility as well as at regional levels to help stop spread among various facilities.

The need for a comprehensive system to collect local, regional, and national data on antibiotic resistance is more critical than ever. The system now exists, and we need quick and widespread uptake.

Rapid and full implementation of this system is supported through the proposed increase of $14 million contained in CDC’s 2015 budget request to Congress.

With the requested funding increase in future years, CDC would look to develop web-based tools and provider apps so physicians will gain access to facility- and community-specific data via NHSN on the most effective empiric antibiotic for the patient in front of them. For example, a physician in a burn unit treating a patient with a possible staph infection will know what antibiotics that particular microbe is likely susceptible TO and which ones are likely to be most effective.

Instead of broad-spectrum antibiotics being the default choice, as is often the case now, doctors will see recommendations for targeted narrow-spectrum antibiotics that are more likely to be effective and less likely to lead to potentially deadly infections such as C. difficile.