Join CSTE   |   Career Center   |   Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Report Abuse   |   Sign In
CSTE Features
Blog Home All Blogs

Welcome CSTE's New Face of Finance

Posted By CSTE, Friday, November 18, 2016
Updated: Thursday, November 17, 2016

Earlier this month, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) welcomed John Lisco to the organization as its new Senior Director of Finance. John has a wealth of experience in public health and management, overseeing several programs and projects at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), serving on the Emory University faculty, and working in the private sector. We asked John to share more about what drives him, his goals for this new position and CSTE, and what keeps him busy in his spare time.

 

How have your prior work experiences prepared you for CSTE?
Over the course of my career, I have had the opportunity to work in a variety of public health and health care settings in both the public and private sectors. These experiences have allowed me to develop leadership, management, and financial skills, which I bring to my position as Senior Director of Finance at CSTE.

I began my CDC career in 1995 in the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control as a program consultant with the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and National Skin Cancer Prevention Education Program. While there, I led a workgroup to develop projections for a national colorectal cancer screening program, which led to federal funding for colorectal cancer screening several years later. Subsequently, I held leadership positions that focused on workforce development, helping to prepare the current and future public health workforce to meet the emerging and on-going challenges in the 21st century. These positions included serving as Chief of the Public Health Prevention Service, Coordinator of the CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Leadership and Management Institute, and Deputy Director of the Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development, where I was responsible for the effective planning, implementation, and monitoring of an annual budget that ranged from $32 - $62M. In my last position at CDC, I served as the Deputy Director of the Program Integration Unit in the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services helping to further solidify and nurture CDC’s relationships with several critical partners, including CSTE, the Association of Public Health Laboratories, and the Association of Schools & Programs of Public Health.

Prior to joining CDC, I served as a senior associate faculty member in the Department of Behavioral Science and Health Education at the Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University. Before the Emory appointment, I worked as an area manager for the national employee health promotion program at AT&T™.

In addition to holding a master of public health degree in health policy and management from the Rollins School of Public Health, I also have advanced degrees in musicology and music therapy. During my tenure as a music therapist, I held several staff and leadership positions, working in a number of hospital-based settings, including adult and adolescent psychiatry, alcohol and drug rehabilitation, chronic pain, and physical rehabilitation.

What most excited you about the Senior Director of Finance position?
Over the last 10 years I have had the opportunity to work with leadership and staff at CSTE on the funding for several cooperative agreements related to workforce development, including the Applied Epi Fellowship, Applied Public Health Informatics Fellowship, Health Systems Integration Program, and the Informatics Training in Place Program. When I was approached about the Senior Director of Finance position, I was excited about the possibility of working with CSTE’s Executive Director Jeff Engel and many of the staff with whom I had developed strong professional relationships and for an organization whose mission and work I understood and respected. In addition, I was at a point in my life and career where I was ready for a new challenge and considering what kind of work to do next. This opportunity came along at just the right time.

What do you see as the key challenges and opportunities for CSTE?
Not only is my position new, but there is a new organizational structure at CSTE, which includes three other new Senior Director positions that also report to the Executive Director. Although we have all worked together in different roles in the past, moving forward the new organizational structure provides both a challenge and an opportunity for the five of us to develop a robust, cohesive primary leadership team for CSTE overall, while providing strong leadership for our own functional teams.

As CSTE has grown under Jeff’s leadership, we have outgrown many of the financial management systems we use to monitor, track, and analyze how we use our resources. We need to replace them with systems that will meet our current and future needs, and allow us to respond to internal and external requests for information and reports in real-time.

Likewise, as the number of projects has grown, we need to ensure that we have the appropriate staff on board to lead the writing of proposals and statements of work, develop budgets, and track all grants and contracts.

What are your top three priorities in your first year?
First, I want to work with key staff to conduct a thorough business requirements assessment to identify CSTE’s financial management needs and ensure that new, interoperable systems are in place that fulfill those needs. Second, I hope to hire one to two new staff to coordinate all grants and contracts for CSTE. Finally, I want to get up to speed on all aspects of CSTE’s financial activities and needs, and provide leadership that ensures that the finance team supports the organization’s mission, vision, and strategic plan.

Where do you hope to see CSTE in five years?
It may be a bit early for me to talk about where I see CSTE in five years, since I am so new to the organization. That said, I expect that we will have the systems, people, and resources in place to ensure that the day-to-day fiscal operations of CSTE run smoothly and that we are able to support the continued growth of the organization.

Just for fun, what can you share with us about your personal life?
I am a firm believer in work-life balance and the importance of having interests outside of the workplace. As you may have noticed by my education and work background, I have had a circuitous route to public health, that has included a life-long interest in music. I studied piano and harpsichord in college, and growing up in the 1960’s and 1970’s learned to play the guitar, as well. For the past two years, I have been playing keyboards in a garage band called Cover to Cover, which has performed at several venues in the Atlanta area. Likewise, exercise has been a great outlet for me. I go to the gym every morning before work and try to get outdoors on the weekends for runs and walks with my daughter.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

The Never Ending Fight for Public Health Funding

Posted By Emily J. Holubowich , Friday, November 4, 2016
Updated: Friday, November 4, 2016
Emily Holubowich, Senior Vice President at CRD Associates, is CSTE’s Washington representative and leads our advocacy efforts in the nation’s capital.
 

On September 28, Congress provided $1.1 billion in emergency supplemental funding to support epidemiologists and other public health professionals in the fight against the Zika virus—280+ days late and $800 million short of the President’s funding request. Despite the bill’s shortcomings, the funding is a welcome relief for those on the frontlines of the Zika response.

On October 26, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided its spend plan to Congress as required by the law, detailing how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other agencies will allocate resources for a range of Zika-related activities. As expected, CDC will rely heavily on state and local health departments to prevent, detect, and respond to the epidemic. Specifically, CDC will award at least $70 million of its $394 million in Zika supplemental funding to support epidemiology, laboratory surveillance, and vector control and surveillance. CDC has already provided Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) supplemental guidance to states (proposals are due November 20) and funds will be awarded before the end of the calendar year. In addition, CDC will restore $44 million that was redirected from the Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) grants to support Zika-related activities in the absence of new funding—funding that is already making its way back to state and local health departments.

With our attention now on the swift allocation of funding and ongoing response, it’s easy to forget how difficult it was to get here. The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) was actively engaged in efforts to secure Zika emergency funding during the last 8 months, first endorsing the administration’s request for $1.9 billion in emergency funding in February. Our vector-borne disease surveillance capacity assessment published in Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report on the impact of budget cuts was a key pillar of our advocacy and education efforts, and was featured in a congressional hearing. CSTE actively participated in the “Zika Coalition” led by the March of Dimes, co-signing multiple letters to Congress and participating in meetings with key lawmakers. CSTE’s President-Elect Janet Hamilton of the Florida Department of Health took a break from her activities on the frontlines of the state’s Zika response to travel to Capitol Hill and share her experiences with a standing-room-only crowd of advocates, congressional staff, and lawmakers as part of the Coalition for Health Funding’s annual “Public Health 101” congressional briefing series, sponsored by the Congressional Public Health Caucus.

The challenge to the public health community now becomes keeping lawmakers’ short attention spans on the long-term Zika response and the needs of the public health infrastructure, more broadly. Some lawmakers think they have already “solved” the Zika problem with the appropriation of the $1.1 billion in emergency funding. Not only is this funding insufficient to support the immediate response, it will not address Zika’s long-term threat nor will it address the underlying weaknesses of the public health system after years of underinvestment that have been exposed by the virus.

Unfortunately, Zika is here to stay and will only get worse. As CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden noted recently, “Zika and other diseases spread by [the Aedes aegypti mosquito] are really not controllable with current technologies. We will see this become endemic in the hemisphere." Meanwhile, the public health infrastructure will continue to buckle under the weight of mounting public health threats—both known and unknown. CSTE will continue to serve on the Zika Coalition’s steering committee to drive advocacy efforts around future funding needs for Zika response. CSTE will also continue to advocate for increased investment in ELC grants and the public health workforce. Only strong, stable, and sustained investment in the underlying public health infrastructure will ensure CSTE members and other public health officials are equipped and ready to combat all public health threats.


CSTE’s Executive Director Dr. Jeff Engel, President-Elect Janet Hamilton, and Washington Representative Emily Holubowich on Capitol Hill for a congressional briefing on the Zika response (Sept. 23, 2016).

Tags:  epidemiology  infectious disease  outbreak  surveillance 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF PLACE: EFFECTS OF RACIAL AND ECONOMIC SEGREGATION ON DIFFERENCES IN LIFE EXPECTANCY ESTIMATES AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL – District of Columbia, 2009-2013

Posted By Emily M. Putzer, MA; Rowena Samala, MPH; Delmar Little, MPH; Fern Johnson-Clarke, PhD, Friday, October 21, 2016
Updated: Thursday, October 20, 2016

Life expectancy is an important population level health outcome for several reasons: It incorporates a wide range of health “problems,” it is a concept largely understood by community residents, and it is available at the “neighborhood” level, increasing relevancy.

The District of Columbia Department of Health participated in a pilot study supported by the Centers for Disease Control and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists that provided technical assistance in determining small area estimates for life expectancy. This research supported and worked in tandem with the community health improvement process that was developing DC Healthy People 2020, the District’s health priority framework that contains over 150 population level health outcome objectives and targets for the year 2020 and 85 recommended strategies.

Because of these benefits of life expectancy as a key indicator, it is really the cornerstone of how we can communicate with diverse groups of District residents and stakeholders around health status, health outcomes, and contributing factors. In shifting the public health paradigm to a more holistic concept of health, incorporating social determinants as key factors influencing health outcomes is crucial to creating impactful policies and programs that improve population health.

A key goal of DC Healthy People 2020 and the DC Department of Health is to advance health equity through a focus on social determinants of health. DC Healthy People 2020 (DC HP2020) works in tandem with our newly-created Office of Health Equity (OHE) and stakeholders to bring about changes in policies (via Health in All Policies), programs, and system-level improvements by providing key health outcome data and recommending evidence-based strategies that will most effectively improve population health outcomes, reduce health disparities, and advance health equity. We know that the most impactful interventions to improve population health include tackling socioeconomic factors and changing the context through policies in order to enable a person’s default behavior to be a healthy behavior. DC HP2020 strategies focus on these two areas as well as improving data infrastructure to better measure key health outcomes for all.



Framing the study using segregation variables vs. “race” or poverty allows us to talk about places and how they enable healthy residents or unhealthy residents. It moves the conversation from, “how can we design public health interventions to target Black (or low-income) populations?” to “how can we change the social/structural makeup of this neighborhood to improve health?” You may have answers to these questions that overlap, but the former question may miss potential solutions such as: responsible community development, housing improvements, school integration policies, increased school funding, minimum wage policies, etc.

While income inequality is generally accepted as a structural challenge in our society, many people look the other way when confronted with the systemic/structural racism that exists. The more research that can allow people to think critically about how our society has been structured to disadvantage certain communities while advantaging others (and how those disadvantages harm health and the advantages support health), the closer we get to restructuring our society and dismantling the harmful systems, to truly allow everyone to reach his/her full potential of health.

Ultimately, we must go past simply documenting disparity. We have been doing that for many years and there has been little progress. We must discover underlying factors, tease out specific social and other neighborhood conditions that point to poor (or excellent) health outcomes, and design and implement programs and policies to effectively target those conditions. Future analyses will include more variables to describe social determinants and neighborhood conditions in order to get a more complete picture of key factors that can help explain differences in health outcomes and point to potential solutions for improving population health.


Authors: Emily M. Putzer, MA; Rowena Samala, MPH; Delmar Little, MPH; Fern Johnson-Clarke, PhD District of Columbia Department of Health
 
Disclaimer: The above contents are solely the viewpoints of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or CSTE.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Project SHINE Fellowship Orientation

Posted By Jessica Arrazola, Friday, October 14, 2016
Updated: Friday, October 14, 2016
CSTE, with CDC and the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), recently welcomed Project SHINE fellows in Atlanta for orientation. Fellows from the Applied Public Health Informatics Fellowship (APHIF), Health Systems Integration Program (HSIP), the Informatics-Training in Place Program (I-TIPP) convened in Atlanta for a 5 day training and orientation. The 43 fellows working at state and local health departments include 12 APHIFs, 10 HSIPs, and 21 I-TIPPs. Among these fellows, three APHIFs and three HSIPs are completing a second year extension focused on population health.


The fellows learned with and from each other as they have diverse academic and professional experiences. APHIFs and HSIPs are new to their health departments while I-TIPPs are current health department employees. All fellows focus on population health improvement though projects rooted in community engagement, epidemiology, or informatics. The networks and connections the fellows build during orientation are essential to maintaining their relationships throughout the fellowship and their public health careers.


The orientation provided an opportunity for fellows to learn from experts about population health, surveillance, and informatics. Eric Kasowski MD, DVM, MPH, Chief of the Population Health Workforce Branch at CDC opened the week with a motivational keynote highlighting the Public Health 3.0 framework, CDC’s 6|18 initiative, and the Community Chief Health Strategist. Fellows participated in a variety of sessions through the week including: standards and interoperability, legalities of data use and collection, the politics of health inequity, and project management. The week ended with an inspirational closing keynote from Judy Monroe, MD, FAAFP, President of the CDC Foundation.


Congratulations to all of the new Project SHINE Fellows. We look forward to working with you during your fellowship!
 
Learn more about Project SHINE, APHIF, HSIP, and I-TIPP online or contact Jessica Arrazola at the CSTE National Office.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Capturing Work-Related Injuries from Emergency Department Data

Posted By Audrey Reichard, Suzanne Marsh, Rebecca Olsavsky, Friday, October 7, 2016
Updated: Thursday, October 6, 2016

Work-related injuries frequently occur, despite the fact that many are preventable. It is critical that we accurately describe and monitor these injuries in order to improve prevention efforts.

Because there is no comprehensive data source that captures all work-related injuries, the occupational injury community relies on multiple sources to describe the problem. The occupational supplement to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS-Work) is a surveillance system that provides one piece of the picture by capturing nonfatal occupational injuries treated in emergency departments (ED). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) works with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to capture NEISS-Work data from a national sample of approximately 67 hospital EDs. These data include persons working for pay or compensation, working on a farm, or volunteering for an organized group.

In an effort to better understand the accuracy and process of identifying work-related cases from ED records, NIOSH conducted on-site assessments at 20 hospitals in the NEISS-Work sample. NIOSH staff worked closely with the NEISS-Work coders at each hospital to understand the challenges of identifying work-related cases and capturing the related data.

NIOSH found several factors that facilitated the identification of work-related cases. The presence and use of a specific work-related indicator (e.g., a checkbox for “injury at work”) in the ED record clearly aided the process. A work relationship can also be indicated in the notes from the treating healthcare professionals or in the expected payer field (i.e., workers’ compensation). Consequently, having all parts of the ED record readily available to the NEISS-Work coders improved the chance of identifying cases. Also, coders who regularly interacted with ED staff, whether through formal training or informal conversations, noted that this improved the quality of the work-related information in the ED record.

NEISS-Work case identification criteria often requires a review of all sections of a complete, up-to-date ED record. Coders with access to only select parts of the records were limited in their ability to identify work-related cases. Coders also encountered barriers related to incomplete and missing records when attempting to abstract records soon after the ED visit. Additionally, data needed to identify work-related injuries were sometimes unavailable when the ED record did not contain employment information or when employment information was not updated.

Confusion around the NEISS-Work case criteria at the time of the hospital assessments resulted in some coders relying on a single identifier (e.g., expected payer of workers’ compensation) that did not capture all cases and including cases that were not work-related. It also contributed to coder difficulties identifying unique types of workers, such as students and trainees.

Based on these findings, NIOSH staff revised the guidelines for identifying a work-related injury for NEISS-Work, provided additional training to the NEISS-Work coders, and improved coding documentation used by the NEISS-Work coders in an effort to refine case identification. We anticipate that this will improve the validity of the work-related injury estimates and enable NEISS-Work data to provide more accurate estimates of nonfatal work-related injuries.

Additional details on NEISS-Work as well as a tool that can be used to analyze single years of NEISS-Work data are available at the Work-Related Injury Statistics Query System. For more information on the assessment of NEISS-Work described above, see the poster presented at the 2016 Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Annual Conference. Click here to view pdf.



If you have worked with ED data in occupational injury research, we are interested in hearing your experiences. Specifically, what challenges have you faced in accurately identifying work-related cases? How did you address those challenges?

Authors:
Audrey Reichard (akr5@cdc.gov), MPH, OTR, is an Epidemiologist in the NIOSH Division of Safety Research. Suzanne Marsh, MPA, is a Health Statistician in the NIOSH Division of Safety Research.
Rebecca Olsavsky, MS, is a Health Communications Specialist Fellow in the NIOSH Center for Motor Vehicle Safety.

 

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Changing Epidemiology of Primary Amebic Meningoencephalitis in the United States: What Have We Learned in the Last Five Years?

Posted By Jennifer Cope, Friday, September 30, 2016
Updated: Friday, September 30, 2016

Naegleria fowleri (commonly referred to as the "brain-eating ameba"), is a free-living microscopic ameba. It can cause a rare and devastating infection of the brain called primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) with a mortality rate >97%. The ameba is commonly found in warm freshwater (e.g. lakes, rivers, and hot springs). Naegleria fowleri infects people when water containing the ameba enters the body through the nose. Once the ameba enters the nose, it travels to the brain where it causes PAM. Infection typically occurs when people go swimming or diving in warm freshwater places, like lakes and rivers. In some instances, Naegleria infections may also occur when contaminated water from other sources (such as inadequately chlorinated swimming pool water or heated and contaminated tap water) enters the nose.

The Free-Living and Intestinal Ameba Laboratory (FLIA) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is one of the few places in the United States that can confirm a diagnosis of PAM. Although PAM is not a nationally notifiable condition, CDC collects data on a standardized case report form for all cases confirmed at CDC. Historically, case reports tended to come from southern-tier states in persons exposed to recreational freshwater; in recent years, new geographic areas and modes of transmission have been documented. CDC’s surveillance has documented substantial changes in the epidemiology of PAM in the United States over the past five years (Figure 1).



The summer of 2016 has continued the trend of identifying new types and geographic areas of water exposures associated with PAM cases. For the first time, a patient was diagnosed with PAM after falling out of a whitewater raft on a closed-loop, recirculated artificial whitewater river in North Carolina. An environmental investigation of the whitewater facility identified Naegleria fowleri in all of the samples collected from the artificial whitewater river. Additionally, the first case of PAM associated with water exposure in the state of Maryland was reported in August. This summer also saw the 4th U.S. survivor of PAM. The Florida teenager’s survival was achieved through prompt diagnosis, early anti-amebic treatment, and close monitoring of intracranial pressure.

The epidemiology of PAM in the United States is evolving. Beginning in 2010, the first PAM case was reported from Minnesota, 600 miles farther north than a case had ever previously been reported. While CDC continues to see cases with recreational freshwater exposures, we have now documented cases associated with the use of piped water, bringing to light the threat posed by Naegleria colonizing building plumbing and water distribution systems. Standardized surveillance and reporting of amebic encephalitis, including PAM, is crucial to understanding the changing epidemiology. When state and local health departments are notified of a possible PAM case, they are encouraged to contact CDC 24/7 (via the Emergency Operations Center at 770-488-7100), where a CDC subject matter expert can provide treatment recommendations for clinicians, specimen submission instructions for testing of specimens at CDC, and guidance for conducting an epidemiologic investigation of water exposures.

 

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Job Sharing the Position of State Epidemiologist

Posted By Sandi Larson and Melissa Peek-Bullock, Saturday, September 24, 2016
Updated: Friday, September 23, 2016

Introducing the new State Epidemiologists from the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health – Sandi Larson, MPH (pictured left) and Melissa Peek-Bullock (pictured right).  Together, we are job sharing the position to better serve the state.  It means we both work part-time and divide the work 51-49 based on our expertise.  While job sharing isn’t new for the agency, it hasn’t been widely adopted.

 Sandi  Melissa

The agency decided to offer the job share for several reasons.  First, to provide statewide representation.  Our state capital and the bulk of our staff and administrative offices is in the north, and we need to be available to provide a subject matter expert for legislature, media and to consult closely with the administration.  The bulk of morbidity is in the south along with our largest local health authority.  The former State Epidemiologist had to travel a lot across the state to serve the needs of both the north and south; the job share reduces the amount of travel associated with the position as we now have local representation.  Second, as State Epidemiologists, we want to be an integral part of the two growing schools of public health both in the north and south.  Third, agency leadership recognized that younger staff are interested in upper management, but also want a healthy work-life balance.  Job sharing this position allows us to pursue our public health careers and have quality family time.  Fourth, agency leadership hopes the job sharing arrangement will increase retention, provide additional coverage during periods of leave, and reduce staff burn out.  Turnover is detrimental to any program including management.  Long-term investment in the position fosters stability for our state.

 

The Nevada State Epidemiologist positions focus on providing technical assistance.  Sandi’s previous experience is in the areas of STD, HIV, hepatitis, TB, mental health and substance abuse as a Health Program Manager at the state.  Melissa was formerly an Epidemiologist at a local health department where her portfolio included general communicable diseases, such as enteric diseases, vector-borne diseases, viral hepatitis, influenza, and perinatal hepatitis B.  Together we have complementary skills and expertise to improve the epidemiology capacity at the agency.  

 

For job sharing to work effectively, those sharing the position must have strong communication skills and be able to work together seamlessly.  We do not want to second guess each other or duplicate work.  Work will be distributed as evenly as possible and effective communication is critical.  We do not want to confuse staff as to who they need to work with on a particular issue.  Technology, including video conferencing and desk sharing, helps us stay connected with each other and to our co-workers.    For external partners, we are setting up a shared email account, so to them, they do not need to distinguish between us.  External partners who email or call will be directed to whomever is most appropriate.  

 

While we are both new to the position, we are excited to serve Nevada using our epidemiology skills through job sharing while continuing to have a strong work-life balance. 

 

Sandi Larson, MPH and Melissa Peek-Bullock are the State Epidemiologists at the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health.  Join the CSTE Workforce Subcommittee to learn more about other workforce development strategies.  If you have questions or would like to learn more about CSTE’s Workforce Development portfolio, please contact Jessica Arrazola.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

What Do CSTE Members Need To Know about CDC’s Updated Pool Code Guidance?

Posted By Michael Beach and Jasen Kunz, Friday, September 16, 2016
Updated: Friday, September 16, 2016
In July, CDC released the 2016 Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC, 2nd Edition). Creation of the MAHC was initiated as a result of a 2004 CSTE position statement to reduce outbreaks and injuries at public pools. This second edition of the MAHC includes important updates to the first edition released in 2014.

Part of a CDC infographic outlining the benefits of swimming, health hazards at pools, and how MAHC can help. Access the full infographic and other materials.

The MAHC offers guidance that can be voluntarily adopted by state and local jurisdictions to minimize the risk for illness and injury at public aquatic facilities (for example, at apartment complexes, hotels, and waterparks) through facility design, construction, operation, maintenance, and management.

Reflecting input from state and local public health colleagues, aquatics professionals, and other stakeholders, the MAHC is being updated every 2 years to ensure that its recommendations remain current with the latest scientific data and aquatics sector innovations. The MAHC offers science-based guidance that government agencies and the aquatic sector can use to reduce risk for outbreaks, drowning, and chemical injuries at public pools and hot tubs/spas.

3 Things CSTE Members Should Know About the Updated MAHC & Supplemental Materials
  • CSTE was instrumental in getting the MAHC started, and you’re needed now too! The 2004 CSTE position statement noted increasing outbreaks at swimming pools and called for CDC action. The following year, stakeholders gathered and recommended CDC lead a process to develop a Model Aquatic Health Code. After 7 years of working with experts in public health, industry, and academia, the first edition was released in 2014. The 2016 MAHC contains updated code language for state and local jurisdictions, along with an annex with scientific rationale for the provisions.
  • The 2016 MAHC includes structural changes, clarifying edits, and new or revised recommendations in the areas of disinfection and water quality, lifeguarding and bather supervision, risk management and safety, and ventilation and air quality. The MAHC website includes a summary of key changes that are in the updated edition, and a “track changes” version with line-by-line edits.
  • CSTE members can use our updated tool to compare their current pool code and practices to key practices the MAHC recommends.
3 Questions CSTE Members Can Ask Themselves
  • Does your health department regulate or inspect swimming pools?
    Explore the MAHC website to access the latest MAHC and supporting materials, our MAHC-based inspection form and other tools, and infographics and other health promotion materials to educate yourself and others about the MAHC.
  • Interested but not sure where to start?
    Join the MAHC Network to connect with health department peers interested in learning more about the MAHC. The Network is free and includes regular webinars with CDC staff and health departments pursuing or considering the MAHC in their community. View past webinars and learn more about the Network.
  • Do you have expertise in recreational water?
    Join the Council for the Model Aquatic Health Code (CMAHC)! Much like the Food Code, the MAHC is updated every 2 years through a national process with stakeholder input. For the 2016 MAHC, 159 change requests were submitted for CMAHC members to vote on. Of these, 92 (58%) change requests were passed by CMAHC and provided to CDC for final decision. Learn more about CMAHC or check out CMAHC Executive Director, Doug Sackett’s, past CSTE blog post.


People in the United States make more than 300 million trips to pools and other bodies of water every year, but 1 in 8 pools are closed upon routine inspection for health hazards. Use the MAHC to help reduce risk and keep swimming fun and healthy in your state.
Michael Beach, PhD and Commander Jasen Kunz, MPH, REHS co-lead CDC’s Model Aquatic Health Code program. Visit www.cdc.gov/mahc for more information.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Assessing Accessibility of Cooling Centers to Vulnerable Populations in New York State

Posted By Seema Nayak, Friday, September 2, 2016
Updated: Wednesday, August 3, 2016

The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) works with local health departments and county emergency preparedness management staff to track cooling center locations where people can go to cool down during periods of extreme heat (https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/weather/cooling/index.htm). NYSDOH staff also map cooling center locations to determine their adequacy and accessibility across New York State (excluding New York City).

While cooling centers are located throughout the state, accessibility to these facilities is important. To be accessible to people without their own means of transportation, cooling centers should be within walking distance (defined as half a mile in this project) or be accessible via public transportation. This may not be a concern in urban areas, but in the smaller towns and rural areas, access to these facilities by public transportation may be limited.

We assessed the accessibility of cooling centers by calculating their proximity to general and vulnerable populations and proximity to public transportation stops (bus/ferry/train). Vulnerable populations were identified from a heat-vulnerability index previously developed by the NYSDOH using 2010 US Census Bureau and 2011 National Land Cover Data. The index helped us identify 984 census tracts as moderately to highly vulnerable to heat. We used population-weighted centroids to calculate distance from general and vulnerable populations. We defined accessibility via public transportation by distance of less than 0.5 miles between cooling center and nearest public transportation stop in five metropolitan areas of New York State.

We found that, although the majority of cooling centers were primarily located in urban areas, less than 10% of the New York State general population, and only about one-fourth of the population in vulnerable census tracts, were within walking distance of a cooling center (Figure 1). However, accessibility improved greatly due to public transportation, with over 80% of the cooling centers located within one half mile of a public transportation stop (Figure 2).

Over the past three years there has been an increase in the number of counties with cooling centers as well as an increase in the total number of cooling centers overall. The Health Department plans to perform periodic assessments of cooling centers to help local agencies allocate adaptation resources, especially in areas identified as vulnerable.


Figure 1. Distance between census tracts and closest cooling center. Click on the picture to zoom.

 


Figure 2. Vulnerable tracts, cooling centers and transportation stops in the metropolitan areas. Click on the picture to zoom.

 
Seema Nayak, MPH (in picture), and Syni-An Hwang MS, PhD are Research Scientists at the New York State Department of Health; Shao Lin is a professor in the Department of Environmental Health Science at SUNY Albany and Zev Ross is a spatial analyst at ZevRoss Spatial Analysis, Ithaca NY and consultant for the project.
 

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

A Tale of Two Assessments – How Are Virginia Hospitals Meeting the Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship?

Posted By Mefruz Haque and Andrea Alvarez, Friday, August 26, 2016
Updated: Friday, August 26, 2016

The emergence of antibiotic-resistant organisms has elevated antibiotic use and misuse to a national topic of conversation. In early 2015, the National Action Plan to Combat Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria was released, making antibiotic stewardship a federal priority. One goal of this plan was to have antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) in 100% of the nation’s hospitals by 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published best practice guidelines that outline seven core elements of hospital ASPs. To evaluate hospital capacity, the CDC developed a Core Elements survey instrument, components of which are included in the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Annual Hospital Survey.


Aligning with national efforts, Virginia (VA) and Maryland (MD) formed the VA/MD Antibiotic Stewardship Affinity Group, comprised of stakeholders from public health, pharmacy, infection prevention (IP), quality improvement and clinical communities. Its first task was to characterize the current state of state antibiotic stewardship efforts according to the CDC Core Elements. In October 2015, an assessment tool developed by the Affinity Group (the VA/MD Antibiotic Stewardship Baseline Assessment) was sent to pharmacy and IP contacts at 132 acute care, critical access, and children’s hospitals in both states. Eighty-five hospitals (33 in MD, 52 in VA) responded to the assessment (response rate = 64%).


A comparative analysis was conducted among Virginia hospital respondents that evaluated differences in results between the VA/MD Baseline Assessment and the 2014 NHSN Annual Hospital Survey. Responses were matched by Virginia hospital and survey question; chi-square tests were used to determine statistical significance of percentages.



Respondents of the VA/MD Baseline Assessment reported meeting core elements more frequently. Comparisons of the two assessments yielded significant differences in specific survey questions. Hospitals responding to the VA/MD Assessment reported lower frequencies of having a formal written statement of leadership report, using an antibiotic time out, and sharing an annual antibiogram.



After matching results by hospital and specific survey question, similar percentages were observed in general. However, significant differences were seen for leadership support and education.



For the VA/MD Assessment, the total number of hospitals meeting all seven CDC core elements was stratified across key hospital characteristics: region, medical school affiliation, and hospital size. Results showed that the Northern health region had the highest percentage (71.4%) of hospitals that had ASPs.


This analysis identified gaps in Virginia hospital ASPs, particularly with respect to leadership support and educating clinicians about optimal prescribing. Differences in response rates and key variables suggest variability in responses between survey types, even among the same Virginia hospitals. Virginia plans to use the results from the assessments to develop targeted educational programs and resources to strengthen existing ASPs as well as support new ones.



Mefruz Haque, MPH, CPH is CDC/CSTE Applied Epidemiology fellow at Virginia Department of Health and Andrea Alvarez, MPH is healthcare-associated infections program manager at the Virginia Department of Health. For more information about the Applied Epidemiology Fellowship, visit the CSTE AEF webpage.

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 4 of 17
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  >   >>   >| 
Association Management Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal