Epidemic Assistance by the Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005-2014.

BACKGROUND: Epi-Aids, or epidemiologic assistance investigations, are an important mechanism through which Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports public health organizations. We described the characteristics of Epi-Aids conducted during 2005-2014 and summarized the publication outcome of Epi-Aid related scientific information products. METHODS: We performed a descriptive analysis of all Epi-Aids conducted during January 1, 2005-December 31, 2014; investigations were categorized by health topic and geographic distribution. We highlighted investigations of substantial public health importance, e.g., multistate investigations and investigations of epidemics and pandemics. We identified the Epi-Aid publication outcome by searching PubMed for Epi-Aid related publications, which included Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWRs) and peer-reviewed publications with an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer (EISO) as a coauthor. We calculated publication timeliness and categorized publications by journal impact factor. RESULTS: During the study period, 698 EISOs and their collaborators participated in 807 Epi-Aids throughout the United States and globally. Approximately 81 Epi-Aids were conducted annually (range, 62-104); 632 (78.3%) were infectious disease-related; 161 (20.0%) were international, supporting 68 countries. As of June 2015, EISOs, in collaboration with partners, published 131 MMWRs and 280 scientific manuscripts on the basis of the 807 Epi-Aids conducted during the study period; 394 (48.8%) Epi-Aids resulted in publications in 80 peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: EISOs play a critical role in conducting Epi-Aids, which require qualified field epidemiologists who can rapidly respond to requests for assistance during public health emergencies. Publications based on Epi-Aids share new knowledge with the scientific community, furthering progress of public health science and practice.

Multiple-serotype salmonella outbreaks in two state prisons--Arkansas, August 2012.

In August 2012, the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) was notified of gastrointestinal illness outbreaks in two Arkansas state prisons. ADH investigated the outbreaks and conducted case-control studies to identify the source of the illnesses. This report describes the results of these investigations, which identified 528 persons with onset of diarrhea during August 2-18, 2012. Results from the prison A investigation identified chicken salad as the most likely vehicle. At prison B, person-to-person transmission and contamination of multiple foods likely contributed to illness. Analysis of stool specimens from inmates identified eight serotypes and 15 pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) patterns of Salmonella. Isolates of Salmonella from eggs produced at prison B matched two outbreak patterns. An additional 69 inmates were positive by culture but were not interviewed or did not report diarrhea, making the total case count 597. Sanitarians identified problems with food preparation, hand washing, and food safety training. ADH tested inmate kitchen workers, excluded infected inmates from work, and provided food safety training. Prison kitchen staff should follow guidelines consistent with state regulations for safe food preparation and pass sanitarian inspection.

Zoonotic disease risk and prevention practices among biologists and other wildlife workers--results from a national survey, US National Park Service, 2009.

In 2007, a National Park Service (NPS) biologist died from pneumonic plague after unprotected exposure to an infected mountain lion. This incident increased awareness of occupational zoonotic disease transmission and prompted an assessment of employees who handle wildlife. During April-June 2009, we conducted a national online survey of NPS biologists and other wildlife workers to assess in the preceding 12 mo: 1) potential work-related zoonotic disease exposures; 2) protective practices, including use of personal protective equipment (PPE); and 3) barriers and facilitators to PPE use. Summary protective measure scores were calculated and compared with sociodemographic and work-related factors. Surveys were completed by 238 employees from 131 parks in all NPS regions. Seventy-one percent were biologists or technicians, 16% natural resource specialists or managers, and 13% had other job titles. Among a majority of respondents, interactions with animals were infrequent and occurred approximately several times per year as follows: handling live (39%), sick (43%), or dead animals (46%), and drawing blood from animals (42%). The most frequently reported protective measures used were hand hygiene and gloves. Commonly agreed-upon measures that would facilitate PPE use included having PPE stocked and readily available (92%) and having specific PPE kits for use during necropsies (91%) and in remote field settings (91%). Significantly higher summary protective measure scores were found if respondents had either read or reviewed "NPS safe work practices for employees handling wildlife" with their supervisor, had zoonotic disease safety or PPE use included in their employee performance appraisal plans, or had conducted a job-hazard analysis for handling wildlife. Ninety (38%) respondents reported receiving zoonotic disease training. Our findings support the development and implementation of workplace interventions to increase zoonotic disease awareness and promote a culture of prevention among wildlife professionals.