Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 123
Filter
Add filters

Year range
1.
Lancet ; 397(10270): 182, 2021 01 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1093257
2.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(7): 254-257, 2021 Feb 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1089245

ABSTRACT

Universal masking is one of the prevention strategies recommended by CDC to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). As of February 1, 2021, 38 states and the District of Columbia had universal masking mandates. Mask wearing has also been mandated by executive order for federal property* as well as on domestic and international transportation conveyances.† Masks substantially reduce exhaled respiratory droplets and aerosols from infected wearers and reduce exposure of uninfected wearers to these particles. Cloth masks§ and medical procedure masks¶ fit more loosely than do respirators (e.g., N95 facepieces). The effectiveness of cloth and medical procedure masks can be improved by ensuring that they are well fitted to the contours of the face to prevent leakage of air around the masks' edges. During January 2021, CDC conducted experimental simulations using pliable elastomeric source and receiver headforms to assess the extent to which two modifications to medical procedure masks, 1) wearing a cloth mask over a medical procedure mask (double masking) and 2) knotting the ear loops of a medical procedure mask where they attach to the mask's edges and then tucking in and flattening the extra material close to the face (knotted and tucked masks), could improve the fit of these masks and reduce the receiver's exposure to an aerosol of simulated respiratory droplet particles of the size considered most important for transmitting SARS-CoV-2. The receiver's exposure was maximally reduced (>95%) when the source and receiver were fitted with modified medical procedure masks. These laboratory-based experiments highlight the importance of good fit to optimize mask performance. Until vaccine-induced population immunity is achieved, universal masking is a highly effective means to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2** when combined with other protective measures, such as physical distancing, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces, and good hand hygiene. Innovative efforts to improve the fit of cloth and medical procedure masks to enhance their performance merit attention.


Subject(s)
/prevention & control , Masks/standards , /epidemiology , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humans , Masks/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology
3.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(6): 193-196, 2021 Feb 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1079853

ABSTRACT

At its October 2020 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* approved the Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older, United States, 2021. After the Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration, ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years at its December 12, 2020, emergency meeting (1). In addition, ACIP approved an amendment to include COVID-19 vaccine recommendations in the child and adolescent and adult immunization schedules. After Emergency Use Authorization of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration, ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years at its December 19, 2020, emergency meeting (2).


Subject(s)
Immunization/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Vaccines/administration & dosage , Adult , Advisory Committees , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humans , Immunization Schedule , United States
4.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(6): 189-192, 2021 Feb 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1079852

ABSTRACT

At its October 2020 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices* (ACIP) approved the 2021 Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for Ages 18 Years or Younger. After Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥16 years at its December 12, 2020, meeting (1). In addition, ACIP approved an amendment to include COVID-19 vaccine recommendations in the child and adolescent immunization schedule. After Emergency Use Authorization of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine by FDA, ACIP issued an interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years at its December 19, 2020, emergency meeting (2).


Subject(s)
Immunization/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Vaccines/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Advisory Committees , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Infant , United States
5.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e25108, 2021 02 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1073222

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a national public health protection agency in the United States. With the escalating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on society in the United States and around the world, the CDC has become one of the focal points of public discussion. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the topics and their overarching themes emerging from the public COVID-19-related discussion about the CDC on Twitter and to further provide insight into public's concerns, focus of attention, perception of the CDC's current performance, and expectations from the CDC. METHODS: Tweets were downloaded from a large-scale COVID-19 Twitter chatter data set from March 11, 2020, when the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, to August 14, 2020. We used R (The R Foundation) to clean the tweets and retain tweets that contained any of five specific keywords-cdc, CDC, centers for disease control and prevention, CDCgov, and cdcgov-while eliminating all 91 tweets posted by the CDC itself. The final data set included in the analysis consisted of 290,764 unique tweets from 152,314 different users. We used R to perform the latent Dirichlet allocation algorithm for topic modeling. RESULTS: The Twitter data generated 16 topics that the public linked to the CDC when they talked about COVID-19. Among the topics, the most discussed was COVID-19 death counts, accounting for 12.16% (n=35,347) of the total 290,764 tweets in the analysis, followed by general opinions about the credibility of the CDC and other authorities and the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines, with over 20,000 tweets for each. The 16 topics fell into four overarching themes: knowing the virus and the situation, policy and government actions, response guidelines, and general opinion about credibility. CONCLUSIONS: Social media platforms, such as Twitter, provide valuable databases for public opinion. In a protracted pandemic, such as COVID-19, quickly and efficiently identifying the topics within the public discussion on Twitter would help public health agencies improve the next-round communication with the public.


Subject(s)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Data Mining , Public Opinion , Social Media , Communication , Humans , Pandemics , Public Health , Public Policy , United States
6.
JCO Clin Cancer Inform ; 5: 24-29, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067368

ABSTRACT

Cancer surveillance is a field focused on collection of data to evaluate the burden of cancer and apply public health strategies to prevent and control cancer in the community. A key challenge facing the cancer surveillance community is the number of manual tasks required to collect cancer surveillance data, thereby resulting in possible delays in analysis and use of the information. To modernize and automate cancer data collection and reporting, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning, developing, and piloting a cancer surveillance cloud-based computing platform (CS-CBCP) with standardized electronic reporting from laboratories and health-care providers. With this system, automation of the cancer case collection process and access to real-time cancer case data can be achieved, which could not be done before. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the importance of continuity of operations plans, and the CS-CBCP has the potential to provide such a platform suitable for remote operations of central cancer registries.


Subject(s)
Cloud Computing , Data Collection/methods , Data Management/methods , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Automation , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Computer Systems , Epidemiological Monitoring , Health Policy , Humans , Registries , United States
7.
Obstet Gynecol ; 137(3): 408-414, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066433

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have begun to be distributed across the United States and to be offered initially to priority groups including health care personnel and persons living in long-term care facilities. Guidance regarding whether pregnant persons should receive a COVID-19 vaccine is needed. Because pregnant persons were excluded from the initial phase 3 clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, limited data are available on their efficacy and safety during pregnancy. After developmental and reproductive toxicology studies are completed, some companies are expected to conduct clinical trials in pregnant persons. Until then, pregnant persons and their obstetricians will need to use available data to weigh the benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccines. Issues to be considered when counseling pregnant persons include data from animal studies and inadvertently exposed pregnancies during vaccine clinical trials when available, potential risks to pregnancy of vaccine reactogenicity, timing of vaccination during pregnancy, evidence for safety of other vaccines during pregnancy, risk of COVID-19 complications due to pregnancy and the pregnant person's underlying conditions, and risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and potential for risk mitigation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine have each issued guidance supportive of offering COVID-19 vaccine to pregnant persons. As additional information from clinical trials and from data collected on vaccinated pregnant persons becomes available, it will be critical for obstetricians to keep up to date with this information.


Subject(s)
/prevention & control , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , /transmission , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Clinical Trials as Topic , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pregnancy , Societies, Medical , United States , Vaccination
8.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(5): 178-182, 2021 Feb 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063531

ABSTRACT

Residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), because they live and work in congregate settings, are at increased risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1,2). In particular, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), LTCFs that provide skilled nursing care and rehabilitation services for persons with complex medical needs, have been documented settings of COVID-19 outbreaks (3). In addition, residents of LTCFs might be at increased risk for severe outcomes because of their advanced age or the presence of underlying chronic medical conditions (4). As a result, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended that residents and staff members of LTCFs be offered vaccination in the initial COVID-19 vaccine allocation phase (Phase 1a) in the United States (5). In December 2020, CDC launched the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program* to facilitate on-site vaccination of residents and staff members at enrolled LTCFs. To evaluate early receipt of vaccine during the first month of the program, the number of eligible residents and staff members in enrolled SNFs was estimated using resident census data from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN†) and staffing data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll-Based Journal.§ Among 11,460 SNFs with at least one vaccination clinic during the first month of the program (December 18, 2020-January 17, 2021), an estimated median of 77.8% of residents (interquartile range [IQR] = 61.3%- 93.1%) and a median of 37.5% (IQR = 23.2%- 56.8%) of staff members per facility received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine through the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. The program achieved moderately high coverage among residents; however, continued development and implementation of focused communication and outreach strategies are needed to improve vaccination coverage among staff members in SNFs and other long-term care settings.


Subject(s)
/administration & dosage , Pharmacy/organization & administration , Public-Private Sector Partnerships , Skilled Nursing Facilities/organization & administration , Vaccination Coverage/statistics & numerical data , Aged , /prevention & control , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humans , Long-Term Care , Program Evaluation , United States/epidemiology
11.
NASN Sch Nurse ; 35(4): 212-216, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-783633

ABSTRACT

School nurses may deal with students presenting with symptoms associated with infections popularized in the news. Although rare, the implications of missing or misdiagnosing these infections are potentially life-threatening and devastating. We present three students presenting with febrile illnesses associated with neurologic symptoms, a rash, and fatigue, focusing on the initial assessment and management of these students and their associated "hot topic" infection. The authors also discuss two public health organizations, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov/) and the World Health Organization (https://www.who.int/), online references for the school nurse to research both emerging and common infectious diseases.


Subject(s)
Infection Control/organization & administration , School Nursing/organization & administration , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Global Health , Humans , School Health Services/organization & administration , United States
14.
J. Hum. Growth Dev. (Impr.) ; 30(2): 164-169, May-Aug. 2020. ilus, tab
Article in English | LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1017244

ABSTRACT

Social distancing was planned as a preventive measure to control the extensive spread of COVID-19. COVID-19-related deaths in Brazil were analyzed during the period of social distancing measures. Mortality data for COVID-19 was obtained from the Worldometer website (www.worldometer.info). Deaths were estimated up to the 31st day after the occurrence of the 5th COVID-19-related death in Brazil. Social distance was measured using Google's community mobility reports (https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/). The Brazilian epidemic curves were interconnected, and mathematical models were evaluated to fit the mortality estimation curves. The optimistic model was defined in the opening period of social distancing and, therefore, in the lower mobility (40-60%). The realistic model was calculated according to relaxed social distance measures (<40%) and the pessimistic model was calculated based on the transmission rate between 2-3. Thus, the equations of the mathematical models provided the outcomes for the date of June 9, 2020, as follows: realistic model with 40,623 deaths, pessimistic model with 64,310 deaths and the optimistic model with a projection of 31,384 deaths. As a result of these analyzes, on May 24, 2020, there were a total of 22,965 deaths related to COVID-19, and those deaths included within the proposed mathematical models were 17,452 for the optimistic model, 22,623 for the realistic model and 32,825 for the pessimistic model. Thus, it is concluded that social distancing measures promoted by the Brazilian public managers contributes to the reduction in approximately ten thousand deaths related to COVID-19 in the current pandemic scenario.


INTRODUÇÃO: O distanciamento social foi planejado como uma medida preventiva para controlar a disseminação extensiva da COVID-19. Nós analisamos as mortes relacionadas à COVID-19 no Brasil durante o período de medidas de distanciamento social. Os dados de mortalidade do COVID-19 foram obtidos no site da Worldometer (www.worldometer.info). As mortes foram estimadas até o 31º dia após a 5ª morte. O distanciamento social foi medido por meio dos relatórios de mobilidade comunitária COVID-19; Google (https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/). As curvas epidêmicas brasileiras foram interligadas e os modelos matemáticos foram avaliados para se ajustarem às curvas de estimativa de mortalidade. O modelo otimista foi fundado no período de abertura da distância social e, portanto, na menor mobilidade (40-60%). O modelo realista foi calculado de acordo com medidas de distanciamento social relaxado (<40%) e o modelo pessimista foi calculado com base em R0 entre 2-3. Sob essa situação, o modelo matemático realista estimou 40.623 mortes em 9 de junho de 2020, enquanto o modelo pessimista antecipou 64.310 mortes e o modelo otimista projetou 31.384. Até hoje (24 de maio de 2020), um total de 22.965 foram relatadas, enquanto nosso modelo projetou 17.452 para o modelo otimista, 22.623 para o modelo realista e 32.825 para o modelo pessimista. Observamos movimento reduzido ao longo deste período. Em resumo, o modelo matemático sugere que a mobilidade reduzida da comunidade diminuiu o total estimado de mortes relacionadas à COVID-19 no Brasil. Enfatizamos que mais procedimentos metodológicos serão necessários para confirmar esta teoria


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Social Isolation , Coronavirus Infections , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Death , SARS Virus , Betacoronavirus
15.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(50): 1917-1921, 2020 Dec 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1016446

ABSTRACT

As school districts across the United States consider how to safely operate during the 2020-21 academic year, CDC recommends mitigation strategies that schools can adopt to reduce the risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). To identify the resources and costs needed to implement school-based mitigation strategies and provide schools and jurisdictions with information to aid resource allocation, a microcosting methodology was employed to estimate costs in three categories: materials and consumables, additional custodial staff members, and potential additional transportation. National average estimates, using the national pre-kindergarten through grade 12 (preK-12) public enrollment of 50,685,567 students, range between a mean of $55 (materials and consumables only) to $442 (all three categories) per student. State-by-state estimates of additional funds needed as a percentage of fiscal year 2018 student expenditures (2) range from an additional 0.3% (materials and consumables only) to 7.1% (all three categories); however, only seven states had a maximum estimate above 4.2%. These estimates, although not exhaustive, highlight the level of resources needed to ensure that schools reopen and remain open in the safest possible manner and offer administrators at schools and school districts and other decision-makers the cost information necessary to budget and prioritize school resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
/prevention & control , Health Resources/economics , Schools/economics , Adolescent , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Child , Child, Preschool , Costs and Cost Analysis , Humans , Schools/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiology
16.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(5152): 1657-1660, 2021 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1005175

ABSTRACT

The first vaccines for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States were authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1) and recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in December 2020.* However, demand for COVID-19 vaccines is expected to exceed supply during the first months of the national COVID-19 vaccination program. ACIP advises CDC on population groups and circumstances for vaccine use.† On December 1, ACIP recommended that 1) health care personnel§ and 2) residents of long-term care facilities¶ be offered COVID-19 vaccination first, in Phase 1a of the vaccination program (2). On December 20, 2020, ACIP recommended that in Phase 1b, vaccine should be offered to persons aged ≥75 years and frontline essential workers (non-health care workers), and that in Phase 1c, persons aged 65-74 years, persons aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions, and essential workers not recommended for vaccination in Phase 1b should be offered vaccine.** These recommendations for phased allocation provide guidance for federal, state, and local jurisdictions while vaccine supply is limited. In its deliberations, ACIP considered scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 epidemiology, ethical principles, and vaccination program implementation considerations. ACIP's recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine allocation are interim and might be updated based on changes in conditions of FDA Emergency Use Authorization, FDA authorization for new COVID-19 vaccines, changes in vaccine supply, or changes in COVID-19 epidemiology.


Subject(s)
/administration & dosage , Health Care Rationing , Immunization/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Advisory Committees , Aged , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humans , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
17.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(5152): 1653-1656, 2021 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1005174

ABSTRACT

On December 18, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Moderna COVID-19 (mRNA-1273) vaccine (ModernaTX, Inc; Cambridge, Massachusetts), a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine encoding the stabilized prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). This vaccine is the second COVID-19 vaccine authorized under an EUA for the prevention of COVID-19 in the United States (2). Vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine consists of 2 doses (100 µg, 0.5 mL each) administered intramuscularly, 1 month (4 weeks) apart. On December 19, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years for the prevention of COVID-19. To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP employed the Evidence to Recommendation (EtR) Framework,† using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.§ Use of all COVID-19 vaccines authorized under an EUA, including the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, should be implemented in conjunction with ACIP's interim recommendations for allocating initial supplies of COVID-19 vaccines (3). The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine under EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available.


Subject(s)
/administration & dosage , Immunization/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Adolescent , Adult , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems , Advisory Committees , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , /adverse effects , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Drug Approval , Emergencies , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , United States/epidemiology , United States Food and Drug Administration , Young Adult
19.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0244271, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-992714

ABSTRACT

Widespread testing is required to limit the current public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple tests protocols have been authorized by the food and drugs administration (FDA) under an emergency use authorization (EUA). The majority of these protocols are based on the gold-standard RT-qPCR test pioneered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, there is still a widespread lack of testing in the US and many of the clinical diagnostics protocols require extensive human labor and materials that could face supply shortages and present biosafety concerns. Given the need to develop alternative reagents and approaches to provide nucleic-acid testing in the face of heightened demand and potential shortages, we have developed a simplified SARS-CoV-2 testing protocol adapted for its use in research laboratories with minimal molecular biology equipment and expertise. The protocol utilizes TRIzol to purify the viral RNA from different types of clinical specimens, requires minimal BSL-1 precautions and, given its high sensitivity, can be easily adapted to pooling samples strategies.


Subject(s)
/methods , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , HeLa Cells , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , Pandemics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Saliva/virology , Sensitivity and Specificity , United States
20.
BMC Public Health ; 20(1): 1919, 2020 Dec 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-979738

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Emergency risk communication is a critical component in emergency planning and response. It has been recognised as significant for planning for and responding to public health emergencies. While there is a growing body of guidelines and frameworks on emergency risk communication, it remains a relatively new field. There has also been limited attention on how emergency risk communication is being performed in public health organisations, such as acute hospitals, and what the associated challenges are. This article seeks to examine the perception of crisis and emergency risk communication in an acute hospital in response to COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore and to identify its associated enablers and barriers. METHODS: A 13-item Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) Survey, based on the US Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) CERC framework, was developed and administered to hospital staff during February 24-28, 2020. The survey also included an open-ended question to solicit feedback on areas of CERC in need of improvement. Chi-square test was used for analysis of survey data. Thematic analysis was performed on qualitative feedback. RESULTS: Of the 1154 participants who responded to the survey, most (94.1%) reported that regular hospital updates on COVID-19 were understandable and actionable. Many (92.5%) stated that accurate, concise and timely information helped to keep them safe. A majority (92.3%) of them were clear about the hospital's response to the COVID-19 situation, and 79.4% of the respondents reported that the hospital had been able to understand their challenges and address their concerns. Sociodemographic characteristics, such as occupation, age, marital status, work experience, gender, and staff's primary work location influenced the responses to hospital CERC. Local leaders within the hospital would need support to better communicate and translate hospital updates in response to COVID-19 to actionable plans for their staff. Better communication in executing resource utilization plans, expressing more empathy and care for their staff, and enhancing communication channels, such as through the use of secure text messaging rather than emails would be important. CONCLUSION: CERC is relevant and important in the hospital setting to managing COVID-19 and should be considered concurrently with hospital emergency response domains.


Subject(s)
/therapy , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Emergency Medical Service Communication Systems/standards , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Treatment/standards , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humans , Information Dissemination/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Singapore , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL