Rapid Spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a State Prison After Introduction by Newly Transferred Incarcerated Persons - Wisconsin, August 14-October 22, 2020.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can spread rapidly in prisons and can be introduced by staff members and newly transferred incarcerated persons (1,2). On September 28, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) contacted CDC to report a COVID-19 outbreak in a state prison (prison A). During October 6-20, a CDC team investigated the outbreak, which began with 12 cases detected from specimens collected during August 17-24 from incarcerated persons housed within the same unit, 10 of whom were transferred together on August 13 and under quarantine following prison intake procedures (intake quarantine). Potentially exposed persons within the unit began a 14-day group quarantine on August 25. However, quarantine was not restarted after quarantined persons were potentially exposed to incarcerated persons with COVID-19 who were moved to the unit. During the subsequent 8 weeks (August 14-October 22), 869 (79.4%) of 1,095 incarcerated persons and 69 (22.6%) of 305 staff members at prison A received positive test results for SARS-CoV-2. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of specimens from 172 cases among incarcerated persons showed that all clustered in the same lineage; this finding, along with others, demonstrated that facility spread originated with the transferred cohort. To effectively implement a cohorted quarantine, which is a harm reduction strategy for correctional settings with limited space, CDC's interim guidance recommendation is to serial test cohorts, restarting the 14-day quarantine period when a new case is identified (3). Implementing more effective intake quarantine procedures and available mitigation measures, including vaccination, among incarcerated persons is important to controlling transmission in prisons. Understanding and addressing the challenges faced by correctional facilities to implement medical isolation and quarantine can help reduce and prevent outbreaks.

Colorectal cancer screening interventions in 2 health care systems serving disadvantaged populations: Screening uptake and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of the current study were to assess changes in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake and the cost-effectiveness of implementing multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs). EBIs were implemented at 2 federally qualified health centers that participated in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Clinic Quality Improvement for Population Health initiative. METHODS: Interventions included patient and provider reminder systems (health system 1), provider assessment and feedback (health systems 1 and 2), and numerous support activities (health systems 1 and 2). The authors evaluated health system 1 from July 2013 to June 2015 and health system 2 from July 2014 to June 2017. Evaluation measures included annual CRC screening uptake, EBIs implemented, funds received and expended by each health system to implement EBIs, and intervention costs to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and health systems. RESULTS: CRC screening uptake increased by 18 percentage points in health system 1 and 10 percentage points in health system 2. The improvements in CRC screening uptake, not including the cost of the screening tests, were obtained at an added cost ranging from $24 to $29 per person screened. CONCLUSIONS: In both health systems, the multicomponent interventions implemented likely resulted in improvements in CRC screening. The results suggest that significant increases in CRC screening uptake can be achieved in federally qualified health centers when appropriate technical support and health system commitment are present. The cost estimates of the multicomponent interventions suggest that these interventions and support activities can be implemented in a cost-effective manner.

The slipping slipper sign: a simple test with high specificity and positive predictive value for peripheral neuropathy among diabetic patients.

This study evaluated the ability of the slipping slipper sign (defined as unknowingly losing a slipper while walking) to identify diabetic neuropathy in Jamaican patients. A single question was used to ascertain the presence of the slipping slipper sign (SSS) among 69 patients attending a diabetes clinic. Nurses assessed pain, vibration and pressure perception among the same patients in order to detect diabetic neuropathy. The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value for the SSS were calculated. Eight participants (men=5, women=3) reported positive SSS. The SSS had a sensitivity of 28.6%, specificity of 100% and positive predictive value (PPV) 100% for neuropathy on at least one of the three tests. These findings indicate that the SSS has high specificity and PPV for diabetic neuropathy but the sensitivity is low. The sign may be a useful adjuvant to conventional methods of screening for severe neuropathy.

Foot care and footwear practices among patients attending a specialist diabetes clinic in Jamaica.

This study aimed to estimate the proportion of patients at the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI) Diabetes Clinic who engage in recommended foot care and footwear practices. Seventy-two participants from the UHWI Diabetes Clinic completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire on foot care practices and types of footwear worn. Participants were a subset of a sex-stratified random sample of clinic attendees and were interviewed in 2010. Data analysis included frequency estimates of the various foot care practices and types of footwear worn. Participants had a mean age of 57.0±14.3 years and mean duration of diabetes of 17.0±10.3 years. Fifty-three percent of participants reported being taught how to care for their feet, while daily foot inspection was performed by approximately 60% of participants. Most participants (90%) reported daily use of moisturizing lotion on the feet but almost 50% used lotion between the toes. Approximately 85% of participants reported wearing shoes or slippers both indoors and outdoors but over 40% reported walking barefoot at some time. Thirteen percent wore special shoes for diabetes while over 80% wore shoes without socks at some time. Although much larger proportions reported wearing broad round toe shoes (82%) or leather shoes (64%), fairly high proportions reported wearing pointed toe shoes (39%), and 43% of women wore high heel shoes. In conclusion, approximately 60% of patients at the UHWI diabetic clinic engage in daily foot inspection and other recommended practices, but fairly high proportions reported foot care or footwear choices that should be avoided.