Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(7): e0271037, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1974314

ABSTRACT

Most U.S. public health agencies rely upon closed points of dispensing (PODs) to aid in medical countermeasure (MCM) distribution. However, few studies have focused on how to assess closed POD preparedness and none have examined best practices for managing sites once they have been recruited. This study involved qualitative interviews with U.S. disaster planners to elucidate their approaches and challenges to managing, sustaining, and assessing existing closed POD sites. In all, 16 disaster planners participated. Common management practices included frequent communication with sites, providing formal and informal training, and assisting with POD exercises. Very few jurisdictions reported doing formal assessments of closed POD sites. The largest challenges identified were staff turnover and keeping sites engaged, sometimes leading to sites voluntarily withdrawing or needing to be removed from being a closed POD. Frequent communication and building partnerships with closed POD site personnel were recommended to maintain and sustain existing sites. Formal and informal assessments will provide assurance of deployment readiness. Closed POD management is a challenging, but essential process to ensure readiness to deploy. Practices outlined by this study can be implemented to enhance closed POD network management at other jurisdictions. This should increase the ability to distribute MCMs rapidly during a future event, contributing to stronger community resilience. Public health officials should continue expanding and improving closed POD networks to enable MCM delivery and minimize morbidity and mortality related to mass casualty events.


Subject(s)
Disaster Planning , Mass Casualty Incidents , Medical Countermeasures , Humans , Public Health , Qualitative Research
2.
Am J Infect Control ; 49(9): 1099-1104, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1375883

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was identified and quickly developed into a pandemic in spring, 2020. This event posed immense difficulties for healthcare nationally, with rural areas experiencing different challenges than other regions. METHODS: The Association of Professionals in Infection Control & Epidemiology conducted focus groups with infection preventionist (IP) members in September and October, 2020. Zoom sessions were recorded and transcribed. Content analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: In all, 38 IPs who work at a critical access hospital or a healthcare facility in a rural location participated. Major challenges identified by IPs in this study included addressing the lack of access to personal protective equipment (PPE), overwhelming workloads caused by the pandemic and multiple roles/responsibilities, inaccurate social media messages, and generalized disbelief and disregard about the pandemic among rural community members. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in preparedness identified in this study, such as the lack of PPE, need to be addressed to prevent occupational illness. In addition, health disparities and inaccurate beliefs about COVID-19 heard by IPs in this study need to be addressed in order to increase compliance with public health safeguards among rural community members and minimize morbidity and mortality in these regions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Focus Groups , Humans , Infection Control , Personal Protective Equipment , Rural Population , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Am J Infect Control ; 49(9): 1093-1098, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1372863

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: A novel human Coronavirus (SARS CoV-2) was identified in January, 2020 and developed into a pandemic by March, 2020. This rapid, enormous, and unanticipated event had major implications for healthcare. Infection preventionists (IP) have a critical role in worker and patient safety. IPs' lessons learned can guide future pandemic response. METHODS: Seven focus groups were conducted with APIC members in September and October, 2020 via Zoom to elicit IPs' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sessions were recorded then transcribed verbatim. Major themes were identified through content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 73 IPs participated (average of 10 IPs per focus group) and represented all geographical areas and work settings. Participating IPs described multiple challenges they have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, including rapidly changing and conflicting guidance, a lack of infection prevention recommendations for nonacute care settings, insufficient personal protective equipment, healthcare personnel complacency with personal protective equipment and infection prevention protocols, and increases in healthcare associated infections and workload. CONCLUSIONS: The identified gaps in pandemic response need to be addressed in order to minimize healthcare associated infections and occupational illness. In addition, the educational topics identified by the participating IPs should be developed into new educational programs and resources.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Focus Groups , Humans , Infection Control , Personal Protective Equipment , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Health Secur ; 19(3): 327-337, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1171384

ABSTRACT

Closed points of dispensing (PODs) are an essential component of local public health preparedness programs because most local public health agencies lack the infrastructure to distribute medical countermeasures to all community members in a short period of time through open PODs alone. However, no study has examined closed POD recruitment strategies or approaches to determine best practices, such as how to select or recruit an agency, group, or business to become a closed POD site once a potential partner has been identified. We conducted qualitative interviews with US disaster planners to identify their approaches and challenges to recruiting closed POD sites. In total, 16 disaster planners participated. Recruitment considerations related to selecting sites, paperwork needed, and challenges faced in recruiting closed POD sites. Important selection criteria for sites included size, agencies or businesses with vulnerable or confined populations who lack access or ability to get to or through open POD sites, and critical infrastructure organizations. Major challenges to recruitment included difficulty convincing sites of closed POD importance, obstacles with recruiting sites that can administer mass vaccination, and fear of legal repercussions related to medical countermeasure dispensing or administration. Closed POD recruitment is a frequently challenging but highly necessary process both before and during the current pandemic. These recommendations can be used by other disaster planners intending to start or expand their closed POD network. Public health agencies should continue working toward improved distribution plans for medical countermeasures, both oral and vaccine, to minimize morbidity and mortality during mass casualty events.


Subject(s)
Civil Defense/organization & administration , Disaster Planning/organization & administration , Emergency Responders/statistics & numerical data , Public Health Administration/standards , Bioterrorism/prevention & control , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Geography, Medical , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Qualitative Research , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL