Institutions of higher education (IHE), working together with local health departments, have an important role in slowing the spread of diseases, and protecting vulnerable students, staff, and faculty to help ensure a safe and healthy learning environment. This guidance for IHE is organized into three categories based on the level of community transmission: 1) when there is no community transmission (preparedness phase), 2) when there is minimal to moderate community transmission, and 3) when there is substantial community transmission. Consult with your local health department to determine what level of transmission is currently occurring in your community. ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
"January 23, 1998." ; Reprinted from the U.S. government publication. "The material contained within is in the public domain."--verso of title page. ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 114-116). ; Mode of access: Internet.
The purpose of this strategic framework is to articulate CDC's goals, objectives, and strategies for effectively meeting global immunization challenges during 2011-2015. This document is intended to build on and complement CDC's previous 5-year plan: CDC global immunization strategic framework, 2006-2010 and is linked to the 2010 National Vaccine Plan of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ; Abbreviations and acronyms -- Vision statement, mission statement, purpose -- Background and introduction -- Strategic principles -- Progress, aims, and challenges -- U.S. government and global health context -- Framework format -- Goal 1: Control, eliminate, or eradicate targeted VPD disability and death globally -- Goal 2: Strengthen capacity and enhance performance of health systems to sustainably deliver routine immunization services -- Goal 3: Strengthen VPD health information and surveillance systems to enhance decision-making capacity for immunization programs -- Goal 4: Increase the appropriate development, introduction, and use of new and underused vaccines to prevent diseases of global and regional public health importance -- Goal 5: Promote synergies between immunization and other public health interventions to strengthen health systems and contribute to decreased maternal and child mortality and morbidity -- Goal 6: Build and strengthen partnerships that maximize coordination and synergy in meeting immunization goals. ; CS220027. ; 8/31/11 - date from document properties. ; 2006-2010 Global immunization strategic framework issued by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Global Immunization Division. ; System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. ; Mode of access: World Wide Web. ; Electronic monograph in PDF format (1.16 MB, 40 p.).
PROBLEM/CONDITION: CDC monitors the incidence of mumps in the United States through the passive reporting of cases to its National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS). REPORTING PERIOD COVERED: 1988-1993. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Weekly reports to the NNDSS from 48 states and the District of Columbia were used to calculate incidence rates for mumps. State immunization requirements were obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. RESULTS: After the licensure of mumps vaccine in the United States in December 1967 and the subsequent introduction of state immunization laws in an increasing number of states, the reported incidence of mumps decreased substantially. The 1,692 cases of mumps reported for 1993 represent the lowest number of cases ever reported to NNDSS and a 99% decrease from the 152,209 cases reported for 1968. During 1988-1993, most cases occurred in children 5-14 years of age (52%) and in persons > or = 15 years of age (36%). Although the incidence decreased in all age groups, the largest decreases (> 50% reduction in incidence rate per 100,000 population) occurred in persons > or = 10 years of age. Overall, the incidence of mumps was lowest in states that had comprehensive school immunization laws requiring mumps vaccination and highest in states that did not have such requirements. INTERPRETATION: Because of the extensive use of mumps vaccine and the increased number of states that had enacted mumps immunization laws, the number of reported mumps cases decreased further since the marked decline that began during the early 1970s. The earlier shift in incidence from children of school ages to older persons that was noted during 1985-1988 continued until 1992, when the proportion of cases occurring in children of school ages increased and exceeded the proportions occurring in other age groups. ACTIONS TAKEN: All health-care providers are encouraged to a) report mumps cases to their local and state health departments for transmission to NNDSS and b) enact school immunization laws requiring mumps vaccination. ; Frederik P.L. van Loon, Sandra J. Holmes, Barry I. Sirotkin, Walter W. Williams, Stephen L. Cochi, Stephen C. Hadler, Mary Lou Lindegren. ; Cover title. ; "August 11, 1995". ; Also available via the World Wide Web. ; Includes biographical references (p. 13-14).
In 1994, CDC launched the first phase of a nationwide effort to revitalize national capacity to protect the public from infectious diseases. The effort focused on four goals: improving disease surveillance and outbreak response; supporting research to understand and combat emerging infectious threats; preventing infectious diseases by implementing disease control programs and communicating public health information; and rebuilding the infectious disease-control component of the public health infrastructure. As a nation, we have made progress in all four areas. The first line of defense for public health— our network of state and local health departments— has been strengthened, and as a nation we have become better prepared to address new diseases as they arise. We have developed new tools for detecting and controlling infectious diseases. New programmatic efforts have incorporated the latest theories and techniques to help people change behaviors that favor the spread of infectious diseases. These achievements were made possible by the hard work and dedication of colleagues in local, state, and federal government; in universities; in private industry; and in many nongovernmental organizations and professional societies. CDC has also begun to address emerging disease issues at the global level, working in partnership with foreign governments, the World Health Organization, and other organizations and agencies. At the same time, however, we have witnessed the appearance of new and unforeseen disease threats, such as a virulent strain of avian influenza that attacks humans, a human variant of "mad cow disease,â€? and new drug-resistant forms of Staphylococcus aureus. The emergence of these threats reminds us that we must not become complacent. We must never underestimate the power, destructiveness, and endless adaptability of infectious microbes. As we face the new millennium, we must renew our commitment to the prevention and control of infectious diseases, recognizing that the battle between humans and microbes will continue long past our lifetimes and those of our children. This document, Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Strategy for the 21st Century, describes CDC's plan to combat infectious diseases over the next 5 years. ; Preface -- Executive Summary -- -- Introduction -- Background -- The "Endâ€? of infectious diseases -- A New consensus: the Institute of Medicine report -- CDC's response -- -- The Second Phase of CDC's Strategy -- CDC's role -- CDC components involved with infectious diseases -- Partnerships -- Goals for preventing emerging infectious diseases: -- Target areas -- -- Summary of the Goals and Objectives -- -- CDC's Plan: Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Strategy for the 21st Century -- Goal I: Surveillance and response -- Goal II: Applied research -- Goal III: Infrastructure and training -- Goal IV: Prevention and control -- -- Anticipated Outcomes -- -- Appendix: Implementation of high priorities from Addressing Emerging Infectious Disease Threats: A Prevention Strategy for the United States 1994–1997 -- -- Acknowledgments -- References -- List of Boxes -- Acronyms -- Index ; October 1998. ; Includes index. ; References: p. 60-63.
"Under the direction of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator's Office, the HHS/CDC Global AIDS Program (GAP) is a partner in the unified U.S. Government (USG) effort to implement the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (the Emergency Plan). As part of this effort, GAP helps resource-constrained countries prevent HIV infection; improve treatment, care, and support for people living with HIV; and build capacity and infrastructure to address the global HIV/AIDS pandemic." ; Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ; Title from title screen (viewed on Aug. 7, 2007). ; Mode of access: Internet from the CDC web site. Address as of 8/7/07: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/gap/docs/2005RevisedGAPFACTSHEET.pdf; current access available via PURL.
The Papanicolaou test--or Pap smear test--is one of the most effective cancer screening tests available, and its ability to detect premalignant conditions has contributed to the decline in cervical cancer morbidity and mortality in the United States since its development in 1941. The success of this screening test has created confidence among women, health-care providers, and public health officials. However, this screening tool is not perfect: false-negative findings are a special concern because they can delay necessary follow-up of and treatment for women who have cervical cancer precursor lesions or invasive cervical cancer. Recent media attention has focused on cytology laboratories that have been closed as a result of deficiencies (including a high proportion of false-negative reports), and in some states legal action has been taken against individual laboratories. With the advent of revised federal regulations implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) of 1988, scrutiny of the quality of cytology laboratory practice has increased. Between 1992 and 1994, a total of 10 cytology laboratories were closed by regulatory action of the Health Care Financing Administration because they were considered a threat to the public's health. Although such closures represent <1% of CLIA-certified cytology laboratories, the attendant publicity may trigger anxiety among women. Public health officials must respond to those concerns with appropriate clinical and community actions to ensure the health and safety of women whose Pap smears were evaluated by the closed laboratories. There are no published recommendations to help develop a public health response to the regulatory closure of a cervical cytology laboratory. In April 1994, the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors, through a cooperative agreement with CDC, convened a working group to provide background on the current practice of clinical cervical cytology in the United States, summarize the CLIA regulations that established specific quality assurance standards for this specialty, and recommend actions that a public health agency may initiate to deliver a measured response to laboratory closings and other regulatory sanctions. This report includes this background and summary of the workshop. The working group made three recommendations: (a) public health officials should plan for a cervical cytology laboratory closure, then, when a laboratory is closed by regulatory action, they should (b) assess the severity of the situation and determine an appropriate response and (c) provide accurate, timely information to the public. ; Introduction -- Cervical cancer screening in the United States -- Clinical quality assurance -- Laboratory regulations and enforcement -- Guidelines for a public health response to closure of a cervical cytology laboratory -- Conclusion -- References -- Appendix A. False negatives and false negative rates (FNRs): a review -- Appendix B. Automated rescreening of Pap smear slides ; December 19, 1997. ; The following CDC staff prepared this report: Herschel W. Lawson, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; John C. Ridderhof, Rhonda S. Whalen, Division of Laboratory Systems, Public Health Practice Program Office. ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 14-15).
Surveillance for chronic fatigue syndrome : four U.S. cities, September 1989 through August 1993: PROBLEM/CONDITION: Although chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) has been recognized as a cause of morbidity in the United States, the etiology of CFS is unknown. In addition, information is incomplete concerning the clinical spectrum and prevalence of CFS in the United States. REPORTING PERIOD COVERED: This report summarizes CFS surveillance data collected in four U.S. cities from September 1989 through August 1993. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: A physician-based surveillance system for CFS was established in four U.S. metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Georgia; Wichita, Kansas; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Reno, Nevada. The objectives of this surveillance system were to collect descriptive epidemiologic information from patients who had unexplained chronic fatigue, estimate the prevalence and incidence of CFS in defined populations, and describe the clinical course of CFS. Patients aged > or = 18 years who had had unexplained, debilitating fatigue or chronic unwellness for at least 6 months were referred by their physicians to a designated health professional(s) in their area. Those patients who participated in the surveillance system a) were interviewed by the health professional(s); b) completed a self-administered questionnaire that included their demographic information, medical history, and responses to the Beck Depression Inventory, the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, and the Sickness Impact Profile; c) submitted blood and urine samples for laboratory testing; and d) agreed to a review of their medical records. On the basis of this information, patients were assigned to one of four groups: those whose illnesses met the criteria of the 1988 CFS case definition (Group I); those whose fatigue or symptoms did not meet the criteria for CFS (Group II); those who had had an identifiable psychological disorder before onset of fatigue (Group III); and those who had evidence of other medical conditions that could have caused fatigue (Group IV). Patients assigned to Group III were further evaluated to determine the group to which they would have been assigned had psychological illness not been present, the epidemiologic characteristics of the illness and the frequency of symptoms among patients were evaluated, and the prevalence and incidence of CFS were estimated for each of the areas. RESULTS: Of the 648 patients referred to the CFS surveillance system, 565 (87%) agreed to participate. Of these, 130 (23%) were assigned to Group I; 99 (18%), Group II; 235 (42%), Group III; and 101 (18%), Group IV. Of the 130 CFS patients, 125 (96%) were white and 111 (85%) were women. The mean age of CFS patients at the onset of illness was 30 years, and the mean duration of illness at the time of the interview was 6.7 years. Most (96%) CFS patients had completed high school, and 38% had graduated from college. The median annual household income/for CFS patients was $40,000. In the four cities, the age-, sex-, and race-adjusted prevalences of CFS for the 4-year surveillance period ranged from 4.0 to 8.7 per 100,000 population. The age-adjusted 4-year prevalences of CFS among white women ranged from 8.8 to 19.5 per 100,000 population. INTERPRETATION: The results of this surveillance system were similar to those in previously published reports of CFS. Additional studies should be directed toward determining whether the data collected in this surveillance system were subject to selection bias (e.g., education and income levels might have influenced usage of the health-care system, and the populations of these four surveillance sites might not be representative of the U.S. population). ACTIONS TAKEN: In February 1997, CDC began a large-scale, cross-sectional study at one surveillance site (Wichita) to describe more completely the magnitude and epidemiology of unexplained chronic fatigue and CFS. ; Malaria surveillance : United States, 1993: PROBLEM/CONDITION: Malaria is caused by infection with one of four species of Plasmodium (P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. ovale, and P. malariae), which are transmitted by the bite of an infective female Anopheles sp. mosquito. Most malaria cases in the United States occur among persons who have traveled to areas (i.e., other countries) in which disease transmission is ongoing. However, cases are transmitted occasionally through exposure to infected blood products, by congenital transmission, or by local mosquito-borne transmission. Malaria surveillance is conducted to identify episodes of local transmission and to guide prevention recommendations. REPORTING PERIOD COVERED: Cases with onset of illness during 1993. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Malaria cases confirmed by blood smear are reported to local and/or state health departments by health-care providers and/or laboratories. Case investigations are conducted by local and/or state health departments, and the reports are transmitted to CDC. RESULTS: CDC received reports of 1,275 cases of malaria in persons in the United States and its territories who had onset of symptoms during 1993; this number represented a 40% increase over the 910 malaria cases reported for 1992. P. vivax, P. falciparum, P. ovale, and P. malariae were identified in 52%, 36%, 4%, and 3% of cases, respectively. The species was not determined in the remaining 5% of cases. The 278 malaria cases in U.S. military personnel represented the largest number of such cases since 1972; 234 of these cases were diagnosed in persons returning from deployment in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. In New York City, the number of reported cases increased from one in 1992 to 130 in 1993. The number of malaria cases acquired in Africa by U.S. civilians increased by 45% from 1992; of these, 34% had been acquired in Nigeria. The 45% increase primarily reflected cases reported by New York City. Of U.S. civilians who acquired malaria during travel, 75% had not used a chemoprophylactic regimen recommended by CDC for the area in which they had traveled. Eleven cases of malaria had been acquired in the United States: of these cases, five were congenital; three were induced; and three were cryptic, including two cases that were probably locally acquired mosquito-borne infections. Eight deaths were associated with malarial infection. INTERPRETATION: The increase in the reported number of malaria cases was attributed to a) the number of infections acquired during military deployment in Somalia and b) complete reporting for the first time of cases from New York City. ACTIONS TAKEN: Investigations were conducted to collect detailed information concerning the eight fatal cases and the 11 cases acquired in the United States. Malaria prevention guidelines were updated and disseminated to health-care providers. Persons who have a fever or influenza-like illness after returning from a malarious area should seek medical care, regardless of whether they took antimalarial chemoprophylaxis during their stay. The medical evaluation should include a blood smear examination for malaria. Malaria can be fatal if not diagnosed and treated rapidly. Recommendations concerning prevention and treatment of malaria can be obtained from CDC. ; Tetanus surveillance : United States, 1991-1994: PROBLEM/CONDITION: Despite the widespread availability of a safe and effective vaccine against tetanus, 201 cases of the disease were reported during 1991-1994. Of patients with known illness outcome, the case-fatality rate was 25%. REPORTING PERIOD COVERED: 1991-1994. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Physician-diagnosed cases of tetanus are reported to local and state health departments, the latter of which reports these cases on a weekly basis to CDC's National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System. Since 1965, state health departments also have submitted supplemental clinical and epidemiologic information to CDC's National Immunization Program. RESULTS: During 1991-1994, 201 cases of tetanus were reported from 40 states, for an average annual incidence of 0.02 cases per 100,000 population. Of the 188 patients for whom age was known, 101 (54%) were aged > or = 60 years and 10 (5%) were aged or = 80 years was more than 10 times greater than the risk for persons aged 20-29 years. All deaths occurred among persons aged > or = 30 years. The case-fatality rate (overall: 25%) increased with age, from 11% in persons aged 30-49 years to 54% in persons aged > or = 80 years. Only 12% of all patients were reported to have received a primary series of tetanus toxoid before onset of illness. For 77% of patients, tetanus occurred after an acute injury was sustained. Of patients who obtained medical care for their injury, only 43% received tetanus toxoid as part of wound prophylaxis. INTERPRETATION: The epidemiology of reported tetanus in the United States during 1991-1994 was similar to that during the 1980s. Tetanus continued to be a severe disease primarily of older adults who were unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated. Most tetanus cases occurred after an acute injury was sustained, emphasizing the need for appropriate wound management. ACTIONS TAKEN: In addition to decennial booster doses of tetanus-diphtheria toxoid during adult life, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends vaccination visits for adolescents at age 11-12 years and for adults at age 50 years to enable health-care providers to review vaccination histories and administer any needed vaccine. Full implementation of the ACIP recommendations should virtually eliminate the remaining tetanus burden in the United States. ; Surveillance for chronic fatigue syndrome : four U.S. cities, September 1989 through August 1993 / Michele Reyes, Howard E. Gary, Jr., James G. Dobbins, Bonnie Randall, Lea Steele, Keiji Fukuda, MGary P. Holmes, David G. Connell, Alison C. Mawle, D. Scott Schmid, John A. Stewart, Lawrence B. Schonberger, Walter J. Gunn, William C. Reeves -- Tetanus surveillance : United States, 1991-1994 / Hector S. Izurieta, Roland W. Sutter, Peter M. Strebel, Barbara Bardenheier, D. Rebecca Prevots, Melinda Wharton, Stephen C. Hadler, Epidemiology and Surveillance Division. National Immunization Program; Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases -- Malaria surveillance : United States, 1993 / Lawrence M. Barat, Jane R. Zucker, Ann M. Barbe,r Monica E. Parise, Lynn A. Paxton, Jacqueline M. Roberts, Carlos C. Campbell, Division of Parasitic Diseases National Center for Infectious Diseases. ; February 21, 1997 ; Includes bibliographical references.
Evaluation is a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and using data to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of programs and, as importantly, to contribute to continuous program improvement (see Appendix A for key definitions). CDC has a deep and long-standing commitment to the use of data for decision making, as well as the responsibility to describe the outcomes achieved with its public health dollars. When programs conduct strong, practical evaluations on a routine basis, the findings can both meet accountability mandates as well as improve program effectiveness. In an effort to bring greater consistency to the use of evaluation for these purposes, evaluation experts around the Agency developed a set of recommendations to inform evaluation planning and implementation. The goal is to increase the use of evaluation data for continuous program improvement Agency-wide. These are recommendations and not mandates because our programs vary so much in purpose, funding, and history. It is expected that the leadership of Centers, Divisions, and large programs will seriously and systematically consider which of these guidelines and recommendations are most important to improve evaluation capacity and the quality of program evaluations in their own organizations. Why are these guidelines and recommendations needed? Although program evaluation has always been a respected component of public health practice, the ability to conduct meaningful program evaluations has been constrained by wide differences in expertise, resources of programs, and commitment to evaluation. Unfortunately, as the accountability environment has intensified at all levels of government, public health programs often find themselves unable to make a persuasive case for the efficacy and effectiveness of their programs. Likewise, in an environment of scarce resources, we need more and better information about which interventions and approaches, of the many options open to us, are best suited to the problem. Strong program evaluation can help us identify our best investments as well as determine how to establish and sustain them as optimal practice. While the emphasis is on CDC practice, most of these recommendations, when implemented, will improve the ways in which partners, grantees, and community-based organizations evaluate and improve their program efforts as well. ; Overview -- 1. Recommendations for CDC/OD for enhanced evaluation training and support -- 2. Overarching recommendations for centers, divisions, and large programs -- 3. Recommendations for CDC's funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) -- 4. Recommendations for applicants/funded recipients related to funding opportunity announcements -- Appendix A: Key definitions. ; November 2012. ; Available via the World Wide Web as an Acrobat .pdf file (137.37 KB, 4 p.).
"CDC has a long history of monitoring the use of clinical preventive services to provide public health agencies, health care providers and their partners information needed to plan and implement programs that increase use of these services and improve the health of the U.S. population. Better use of clinical preventive services could prevent tens of thousands of deaths each year. With passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as amended by the Heathcare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which expands health insurance coverage for the United States population and increases access to preventive services, there are new opportunities to promote and improve use of these valuable and life-saving services. This report provides baseline data prior to implementation of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Public health and clinical medicine complement and enrich each other, but they must engage with each other to maximize their impact. Synergies created through cooperation can amplify the impact that either might produce working alone. Public health can also serve as an honest broker by providing unbiased and scientifically accurate information to policy makers, the health-care community, and the public, and is well equipped to monitor health systems to facilitate increases in effectiveness and efficiency. This MMWR Supplement on the Use of Selected Clinical Preventive Services Among Adults--United States, 2007-2010 is the first in a periodic series of reports examining use of selected clinical preventive services." -p. 1 ; Foreword -- Rationale for periodic reporting on the use of selected adult clinical preventive services -- United States -- Recommended use of aspirin and other antiplatelet medications among Adults -- National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, United States, 2005-2008 -- Control of hypertension among adults -- National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2005-2008 -- Screening for lipid disorders among adults -- National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2005-2008 -- Characteristics associated with poor glycemic control among adults with self-reported diagnosed diabetes -- National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2007-2010 -- Tobacco use screening and counseling during physician office visits among adults -- National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2005-2009 -- Breast cancer screening among adult women -- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2010 -- Prevalence of colorectal cancer screening among adults -- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2010 -- Prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection among persons aged >̲13 years -- National HIV Surveillance System, United States, 2005-2008 -- Influenza vaccination coverage among adults -- National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2008-09 Influenza Season -- Conclusions and future directions for periodic reporting on the use of selected adult clinical preventive services -- United States ; "June 15, 2012." ; "The material in this report originated in the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases." - p. 1 ; Also available via the World Wide Web as an Acrobat .pdf file (1.62 MB, 84 p.). ; Includes bibliographical references.
"Iron deficiency is the most common known form of nutritional deficiency. Its prevalence is highest among young children and women of childbearing age (particularly pregnant women). In children, iron deficiency causes developmental delays and behavioral disturbances, and in pregnant women, it increases the risk for a preterm delivery and delivering a low-birthweight baby. In the past three decades, increased iron intake among infants has resulted in a decline in childhood iron-deficiency anemia in the United States. As a consequence, the use of screening tests for anemia has become a less efficient means of detecting iron deficiency in some populations. For women of childbearing age, iron deficiency has remained prevalent. To address the changing epidemiology of iron deficiency in the United States, CDC staff in consultation with experts developed new recommendations for use by primary health-care providers to prevent, detect, and treat iron deficiency. These recommendations update the 1989 "CDC Criteria for Anemia in Children and Childbearing-Aged Women" (MMWR 1989;38(22):400-4) and are the first comprehensive CDC recommendations to prevent and control iron deficiency. CDC emphasizes sound iron nutrition for infants and young children, screening for anemia among women of childbearing age, and the importance of low-dose iron supplementation for pregnant women." - p. 1 ; April 3, 1998 ; "The following CDC staff prepared this report: Ray Yip, M. Ibrahim Parvanta, Mary E. Cogswell, Sharon M. McDonnell, Barbara A. Bowman, Laurence M. Grummer-Strawn, Frederick L. Trowbridge, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; in collaboration with: Elaine W. Gunter, Division of Environmental Health Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health; Anne C. Looker, Division of Health Examination Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics; Onno W. Van-Assendelft, Scientific Resource Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases; Rosemary C. Bakes-Martin, Laboratory Practice Training Branch, Public Health Practice Program Office; Caryn Bern, L. Diane Clark, Geraldine S. Perry, Kelley S. Scanlon, Bettylou Sherry, Colette L. Zyrkowski, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion." ; "U.S. Government Printing Office: 1998-633-228/67061 Region IV."--P. [4] of cover. ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 25-29).
"This guide is intended to assist state, local, and tribal public health professionals in the initiation of response activities during the first 24 hours of an emergency or disaster. It should be used in conjunction with existing emergency operations plans, procedures, guidelines, resources, assets, and incident management systems. It is not a substitute for public health emergency preparedness and planning activities. The response to any emergency or disaster must be a coordinated community effort." -- p. 1 ; I. Introduction -- II. Public Health Emergency Preparedness Assumptions -- III. Public Health Emergency Response Functions and Tasks During the Acute Phase -- IV. Ongoing Public Health Emergency Response Functions and Tasks -- V. Template I. Documentation of Contacts and Actions -- VI. Template 2. Health Department Personnel Emergency Contact Information -- VII. Template 3. State, Local, and Tribal Emergency Contact Information -- VIII. Template 4. Leadership Assignments -- IX. Template 5. Incident-Specific Public Health Preparedness ; "April 2011." ; Also available on the internet as an Acrobat .pdf file (210 KB, 65 pages).
This guide is intended to provide National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP) users with practical guidance, helpful tips, and sample tools for implementing the performance standards assessments in state and local public health systems, or among public health agency governing bodies. The NPHPSP is intended to improve the quality of public health practice and the performance of public health systems by: Providing performance standards for public health systems and encouraging their widespread use; Engaging and leveraging national, state, and local partnerships to build a stronger foundation for public health preparedness; Promoting continuous quality improvement of public health systems; and Strengthening the science base for public health practice improvement. ; Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Concepts applied in the NPHPSP -- How do we prepare for the NPHPSP assessment? -- How do we conduct the NPHPSP assessment? -- How do we conduct the NPHPSP assessment? -- After we complete the assessment, what next? -- Summary -- Resources -- Appendix A. Public Health in America statement -- Appendix B. Example from local supplemental optional questionnaire--priority of model standards -- Appendix C. Example from state supplemental questionnaire--agency contribution -- Appendix D. Respondents -- Appendix E. Discussion questions to put data into context -- Appendix F. Identifying priorities: basic worksheet. example action plan -- Appendix G. Priority setting matrix with example criteria -- Appendix H. Root Cause analysis: Fishbone technique example ; "CS111033." ; The National Public Health Performance Standards Program (NPHPSP) User Guide was developed collaboratively by the program's national partner organizations. The NPHPSP partner organizations include: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); American Public Health Association (APHA); Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO); National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO); National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH); National Network of Public Health Institutes (NNPHI); and the Public Health Foundation (PHF). ; Mode of access: Internet as an Acrobat .pdf file (3.81 MB, 76 p.).
New national health information privacy standards have been issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The new regulations provide protection for the privacy of certain individually identifiable health data, referred to as protected health information (PHI). Balancing the protection of individual health information with the need to protect public health, the Privacy Rule expressly permits disclosures without individual authorization to public health authorities authorized by law to collect or receive the information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability including but not limited to public health surveillance, investigation, and intervention. Public health practice often requires the acquisition, use, and exchange of PHI to perform public health activities (e.g., public health surveillance, program evaluation, terrorism preparedness, outbreak investigations, direct health services, and public health research). Such information enables public health authorities to implement mandated activities (e.g., identifying, monitoring, and responding to death, disease, and disability among populations) and accomplish public health objectives. Public health authorities have a long history of respecting the confidentiality of PHI, and the majority of states as well as the federal government have laws that govern the use of, and serve to protect, identifiable information collected by public health authorities. The purpose of this report is to help public health agencies and others understand and interpret their responsibilities under the Privacy Rule. ; Introduction -- Overview of the privacy rule -- The Privacy rule and public health -- The Privacy rule and public health research -- The Privacy rule and other laws -- Online resources -- Acknowledgments -- References -- Appendix A: Selected privacy rule concepts and definitions -- Appendix B: Sample text that can be used to clarify public health issues under the privacy rule ; May 2, 2003. ; This report was prepared by Salvatore Lucido, M.P.A., and Denise Koo, M.D., Office of the Associate Director for Science, Epidemiology Program Office, CDC, in collaboration with James G. Hodge, Jr., J.D., Center for Law and the Public's Health, Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, Baltimore, Maryland. ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 12).
"To contain the spread of a contagious illness, public health authorities rely on many strategies. Two of these strategies are isolation and quarantine. Both are common practices in public health, and both aim to control exposure to infected or potentially infected persons. Both may be undertaken voluntarily or compelled by public health authorities. The two strategies differ in that isolation applies to persons who are known to have an illness, and quarantine applies to those who have been exposed to an illness but who may or may not become ill." - p. 1 ; Title from title screen (viewed on June 22, 2007). ; "January 20, 2004." ; Mode of access: Internet from the CDC web site as Acrobat .pdf file (48.3 KB, 2 p. ). Address as of 6/22/2007: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/pdf/isolationquarantine.pdf.
