Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of an N95 Respirator Decontamination and Reuse Program for Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, substantial disruptions in personal protective equipment (PPE) supply chains forced healthcare systems to become resourceful to ensure PPE availability for healthcare workers. Most worrisome was the global shortage of N95 respirators. In response, a collaboration between the Department of Infection Control and Healthcare Epidemiology and the Department of Biosafety at the University of Texas Medical Branch developed a PPE recycling program guaranteeing an adequate supply of respirators for frontline staff. The team successfully developed and implemented a novel workflow that included validated decontamination procedures, education, and training programs as well as transportation, labeling, and storage logistics. In total, 15,995 respirators of various types and sizes were received for recycling. Of these, 12,752 (80%) were recycled. Following the program's implementation, we surveyed 134 frontline healthcare workers who overwhelmingly graded our institution's culture of safety positively. Overall impressions of the N95 respirator recycling program were mixed, although interpretation of those results was limited by a lower survey response rate. In an era of increasing health security threats, innovative recycling programs like this one may serve as a model for other health systems to respond to future PPE supply chain disruptions.

Texas professionals are employing a one health approach to protect the United States against biosecurity threats.

Texas is a geographically large state with large human and livestock populations, many farms, a long coastal region, and extreme fluctuations in weather. During the last 15 years, the state of Texas has frequently suffered disasters or catastrophes causing extensive morbidity and economic loss. These disasters often have complicated consequences requiring multi-faceted responses. Recently, an interdisciplinary network of professionals from multiple academic institutions has emerged to collaborate in protecting Texas and the USA using a One Health approach. These experts are training the next generation of scientists in biopreparedness; increasing understanding of pathogens that cause repetitive harm; developing new therapeutics and vaccines against them; and developing novel surveillance approaches so that emerging pathogens will be detected early and thwarted before they can cause disastrous human and economic losses. These academic One Health partnerships strengthen our ability to protect human and animal health against future catastrophes that may impact the diverse ecoregions of Texas and the world.

Using multiple mini interviews as a pre-screening tool for medical student candidates completing international health electives.

There continues to be an increase in the number of learners who participate in international health electives (IHEs). However, not all learners enter IHEs with the same level of knowledge, attitude, and previous experience, which puts undue burden on host supervisors and poses risks to student and patient safety. The Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) is a technique that has become a popular method for undergraduate and postgraduate-level health science admissions programs. This paper describes the MMI process used by our program to screen first-year medical students applying for pre-clinical IHEs. Two country-specific cases were developed to assess non-cognitive skills. One hundred percent (100%) of the students (n = 48) and interviewers (n = 10) who participated in MMIs completed anonymous surveys on their experience. The majority of students rated the scenarios as realistic (>90%); 96% found the MMI format fair and balanced; 96% of students felt that they were able to clearly articulate their thoughts; 75% of students stated that they had a general understanding of how the MMIs worked; only 33% of students would have preferred a traditional one-to-one interview. Feedback from both interviewers and students was positive toward the MMI experience, and no students were identified as unfit for participation. Ultimately, 43 students participated in pre-clinical IHEs in 2016. In this paper, we will outline our MMI process, detail shortcomings, and discuss our next steps to screen medical students for IHEs.

Coalicion de Salud Comunitaria (COSACO): using a Healthy Community Partnership framework to integrate short-term global health experiences into broader community development.

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern that short-term experiences in global health experiences (STEGH), undertaken by healthcare providers, trainees, and volunteers from high income countries in lower and middle income countries, risk harming the community by creating a parallel system of care separate from established community development efforts. At the same time, the inclusion of non-traditional actors in health planning has been the basis of the development of many Healthy Community Partnerships (HCP) being rolled out in Canada and the United States. These partnerships aim to bring all stakeholders with a role to play in health to the table to align efforts, goals and programs towards broad community health goals. RESULTS: This methodology paper reports on the process used in La Romana, Dominican Republic, in applying a modified HCP framework. This project succeeded at bringing visiting STEGH organizations into a coalition with key community partners and supported attempts to embed the work of STEGH within longer-term, established development plans. CONCLUSIONS: In presenting the work and process and lessons learned, the hope is that other communities that encounter significant investment from STEGH groups, and will gain the same benefits that were seen in La Romana with regards to improved information exchange, increased cross-communication between silos, and the integration of STEGH into the work of community partners.

Short term global health experiences and local partnership models: a framework.

Contemporary interest in in short-term experiences in global health (STEGH) has led to important questions of ethics, responsibility, and potential harms to receiving communities. In addressing these issues, the role of local engagement through partnerships between external STEGH facilitating organization(s) and internal community organization(s) has been identified as crucial to mitigating potential pitfalls. This perspective piece offers a framework to categorize different models of local engagement in STEGH based on professional experiences and a review of the existing literature. This framework will encourage STEGH stakeholders to consider partnership models in the development and evaluation of new or existing programs.The proposed framework examines the community context in which STEGH may occur, and considers three broad categories: number of visiting external groups conducting STEGH (single/multiple), number of host entities that interact with the STEGH (none/single/multiple), and frequency of STEGH (continuous/intermittent). These factors culminate in a specific model that provides a description of opportunities and challenges presented by each model. Considering different models, single visiting partners, working without a local partner on an intermittent (or even one-time) basis provided the greatest flexibility to the STEGH participants, but represented the least integration locally and subsequently the greatest potential harm for the receiving community. Other models, such as multiple visiting teams continuously working with a single local partner, provided an opportunity for centralization of efforts and local input, but required investment in consensus-building and streamlining of processes across different groups. We conclude that involving host partners in the design, implementation, and evaluation of STEGH requires more effort on the part of visiting STEGH groups and facilitators, but has the greatest potential benefit for meaningful, locally-relevant improvements from STEGH for the receiving community. There are four key themes that underpin the application of the framework: 1. Meaningful impact to host communities requires some form of local engagement and measurement. 2. Single STEGH without local partner engagement is rarely ethically justified. 3. Models should be tailored to the health and resource context in which the STEGH occurs. 4. Sending institutions should employ a model that ultimately benefits local receiving communities first and STEGH participants second. Accounting for these themes in program planning for STEGH will lead to more equitable outcomes for both receiving communities and their sending partners.