Archive for the 'Partners' category

9/11, Anthrax, and Life in Public Health: Part 3

By Scott J. Becker, MS, Executive Director, APHL

Part 3 of a three part series.  

Angels to the Rescue

During this period, APHL experienced a surge in media interest, as it quickly became apparent which labs were doing the anthrax testing.  We went from maybe three media calls per year to up to 60 per day.  I made the decision that APHL should not shy away from media attention, instead we should let the media tell our story.  But I knew that we couldn’t keep up this pace so I asked the board to approve a one time deficit spending of up to $30,000 for crisis communications support.  How did I arrive at that figure?  It seemed like a number that would fly – and it least it was a place to start.  Following board approval, I contacted the only director of communications I knew, Jody DeVoll (then with AMCHP) for advice.  She stayed on the phone with me for over an hour, coaching me on the nuances of media and ended by saying “you need Jill Merrick, and you need an intern just to handle the incoming calls.”  Jody is Angel #1.  Jill Merrick is a communicator extraordinaire.  She was my godsend back then, and now I consider her a good friend.  Jill called me to say, “Jody called me and told me your situation, how can I help?”  Jill was in our office the next day, and our own media induced chaos became more manageable, and most importantly it became more strategic.  Jill is Angel #2.    I gave one interview on WCBS News radio in New York City about the use of anthrax home test kits that were being sold on the internet (I said that it was a bad idea).  Nancy Kaufman, an executive at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation heard the interview and called to ask if there was something they could do.  “For sure, “I replied, “we need funds to help pay for crisis communications support.”  Nancy is my third angel.  Within days, I had a grant to cover our communications needs, but with one caveat.  We were told that we must produce a communications plan for the association but the added commentary was “we don’t think that you can really do much with it, after all it’s only labs you deal with.”  To me, those were fighting words.    Not only did we create that plan, but we proved them wrong, very wrong.  About a year after the anthrax attacks and subsequent media maelstrom, APHL hired its first director of strategic communications – Jody DeVoll, also known as Angel #1.  Jody now heads up a four person strategic communications team.  The public health lab system rose to the occasion that fall, testing over 125,000 samples for anthrax contamination.

The fall and winter of 2001 ended for me with a much needed two week vacation.  On December 26, 2001 USA Today ran a multi-page story about labs and anthrax, complete with a quarter page photo of Kati Kelley, the Connecticut state laboratory director (and one of my public health heroes).

Shortly after the new year, my daughter Sophie began to utter her first few words.  They were “dada,” “mama,” and “antrax.”  It was at that moment that I realized what toll these events took on me, having been absent so much of Sophie’s first year.  Someday Sophie and her younger sister Ali may read these words and realize how important it is for me to serve the public’s health through APHL, and how my small role and bearing witness helped shape me as a parent and as a professional.

Through planning, long days and nights, excellent science (some admittedly “on the fly”), and the dedication of some of the most committed public servants in America, we made it through that dark fall and winter stronger because of the experience.  The experiences of 2001 helped us better serve the public through other health threats in the past ten years – West Nile Virus, SARS, monkeypox, Hurricane Katrina, 2009 H1N1 Influenza pandemic, and the Deepwater Horizon (Gulf Coast Oil Spill) accident.

The unsung heroes of public health, laboratorians, hold my greatest respect.

Part 1 and Part 2

 

5 responses so far

9/11, Anthrax, and Life in Public Health: Part 2

By Scott J. Becker, MS, Executive Director, APHL

Part 2 of a three part series.  See Part 1 here

CDC worked up messages that states should be communicating with their hospitals and physicians to request immediate notification of any patient who showed symptoms of anthrax and forwarding of any specimens to the state lab for analysis.

The following week and a half was a blur – anthrax was detected in a second AMI employee. Swabs were taken from their facility and found to be contaminated as nasal swabs were taken from many other AMI employees.  Anthrax was then detected in New York City (as if they haven’t been through enough!) and in Washington, DC at the Hart Senate Building.  We kept a running dialogue with our members, checking on their needs and with the CDC investigators.  That week we also began to hear of several “white powder events,” as we now call them.

On Friday, October 19th at 5:00 pm I received a call from CDC’s senior lab advisor, Dr. Jan Nicholson, asking if we could quickly arrange a 50-state call with all state lab directors as CDC wanted to share information with us.  We contacted every state and held the call at 6:30 pm – during which we learned that the CDC linked the four confirmed cases of anthrax to “intentional delivery of B. anthracis spores through mailed letters or packages”– the US postal system was the delivery mechanism for the anthrax.

Now that anthrax was seemingly everywhere on the East coast, we were more than on alert, we were set to action.  A major gap was uncovered during the 50-state call – there was no standardized protocol for testing for B. anthracis from an environmental sample, only a human clinical specimen.  So we created one over the course of the weekend.

From Friday night through mid-day Sunday, APHL members and CDC scientists developed a protocol by working through the days and nights, handing off the still draft protocol to the next team in the next time zone, until the protocol was deemed by CDC anthrax leads to be ready for prime time.  Prime time turned out to be Monday morning.

Sunday morning I was on a call with Dr. Nicholson and was asked if we could meet with Postal Officials that evening at their emergency operations center in DC.  Very fortunately, APHL’s then-president Dr. Mary Gilchrist was already en route to DC for other meetings and was able to join me.  Knowing how the government works, I didn’t want to the two of us to be outnumbered, so I enlisted Carol Clark,APHL’s chief operating officer, to join us.  The APHL band of three entered the USPS headquarters at 8:30 pm and met with a team of five officials all of whom looked like they hadn’t slept for days.  Truth was, they hadn’t.

CDC was beginning to be deluged with specimens from the postal system, so private clinical labs (which had no protocol) were testing specimens for anthrax; state labs were getting inundated with objects, powders and some of the strangest things one could imagine for testing.

The postal officials were questioning Dr. Gilchrist, a world-class microbiologist and architect of the LRN, about spore size and how far spores could float.  She, in turn, was asking them about the mail handling process.  She described how spores may go towards electrostatic charges, charges that would be present as mail went through a machine that essentially “pounded the hell out of the envelope,” as was described to us.

Carol and I worked with Mary to devise a plan to bring some order to the chaos that was ensuing in mail facilities across the country.  We learned about the process of mail flow and incorporated terms like “upstream and downstream” facilities into our lexicon.  We established that by mid-week APHL would deploy a lab system coordinator to the US Postal Service part time and that the person would work from APHL offices in downtown Washington the rest of the time.  We initially figured we would need a coordinator inside USPS for a few days per week for a few weeks.  We enlisted Tony Sambol who serves as the bioterrorism lab coordinator for the Nebraska Public Health Lab to come to DC.  Tony and his boss, Dr. Steve Hinrichs, readily agreed to the arrangement. Tony arrived the following Wednesday, and it was a full month before we saw him at APHL.  He never left the USPS ops center, there was just no time.

The USPS was looking for order out of chaos and we delivered. Tony set up a system of communication and coordination for the high threat samples (as deemed by postal inspectors and/or FBI) to quickly reach the closest LRN lab capable of testing and that wasn’t inundated at that moment.  All of this required knowledge, dedication, nerves of steel and excellent communication – all of which Tony possessed.  APHL was contracted by the USPS for this testing.  LRN support was still fairly thin so this arrangement allowed the LRN labs to conduct the testing without worry that it was draining state coffers or limited grant resources.

Lab directors were fully supportive of this system.  They knew they were under the gun to deliver quality results to the public as quickly as possible.  The labs were on the frontline in the war against terrorism because it was within those labs that answers were housed.  The public health labs were the only ones who could determine if anthrax was present or not.

These were some tense times.  I was told to be on a call (and ensure that Dr. Gilchrist was on it too) with some state epidemiologists who were very concerned and angry that their state lab was being “used” by APHL for fee-for-service postal testing….It seemed that even a few weeks into the events, the public health community was not yet convinced of how real this threat was.  Fortunately, just before the call, cooler heads prevailed, and, as I understand it, some East coast epidemiologists supported this system because they were seeing the chaos first hand.

The next few weeks were some of the craziest of our lives. Anthrax was seemingly everywhere.  Rural towns, big cities, the Hawaiian Islands, State Department outposts around the globe all had anthrax scares.  Nowhere seemed off limits to the ubiquitous white powder.   It wasn’t only white powders and false alarms, the lab system also detected the real deal.  Anthrax was in newsrooms in NYC, the Senate office buildings, and portions of the postal system.  It was discovered that a 61 year old health care worker succumbed to anthrax, as did a 94 year old woman who rarely left her home.  Contaminated mail was the working theory and remains so today.

To be continued… (Part 1 and Part 3)

2 responses so far

9/11, Anthrax, and Life in Public Health: Part 1

By Scott J. Becker, MS, Executive Director, APHL

Part 1 of a three part series.

Everyone has a story of when their life changed forever.  It could be before kids or after kids – or a traumatic life event like the death of a spouse, or a happy event like graduating from university.  For an entire generation it was 9/11 and the anthrax events that soon consumed those of us in public health.

Like many of you, I remember exactly where I was when the towers fell.  I was on my way to deliver a keynote address to the Mississippi Public Health Association and the topic was Branding Public Health.  Upon landing in Atlanta, I called my hosts to let them know when I was due to land in Jackson, and heard that there was some “trouble” but that we should be in touch when I landed.  I then started to pick up snippets of conversation around me, words that sent a chill down my spine.  “Bombing… New York… Washington…” were just a few.  I jumped back on the phone to call my wife to ask her to please go pick up our 5 month old daughter, Sophie, at daycare.  You see, that very day was Sophie’s first full day in daycare, and the daycare center was a few blocks from the White House.  I caught my wife back at home in Bethesda, who immediately turned on the TV, and then headed back downtown.  I wandered the terminal for a minute or two, trying to wrap my head around what I was hearing and then called a colleague at CDC, realizing that I would be stuck in Atlanta.  He offered me his office and I headed up after encountering the longest taxi line I’ve ever seen (I was quick; I got out in 20 minutes.  Folks that waited longer were there most of the day).

Once I got to CDC it was apparent what had transpired.  And then CDC was evacuated, as it was deemed a possible target by the unknown enemies.  We had now moved into our new life, but were too numb to understand it.  Soon thereafter I checked into a hotel, and joined many others glued to a TV.  We were a new “family” of sorts, all of us stuck together in this unfolding national tragedy.  I was finally able to get a call back to my wife and was relieved to learn that she had gotten Sophie out of DC, even before the Pentagon was attacked.  Sitting there, I learned that my flight that morning left Dulles the same time as the one used by the terrorists that flew into the Pentagon.

Hearing that sent me into action; I needed to get home.  Through divine intervention and many phone calls, I secured a one-way car rental the next day.  Virginia’s lab director Jim Pearson, APHL staff Jeff Jacobs (now with ASCP) and I drove straight home.  No planes in the sky; no cars on the road; patriotic signs on many overpasses from Georgia to Maryland.  After 12 hours of travel we came over a small hill on 395 in Arlington and looked down on the smoldering black hole in the Pentagon complete with the American flag… and the quiet almost desolate city of Washington just beyond.

What I couldn’t quite grasp was exactly how our world was now completely different.  There were Humvees on every corner, security officers with guns and policemen… just about everywhere.  Our city, like New York, was transformed overnight.   So were our professional lives, particularly for those of us working in public health.

At APHL, we’d been focused on lab preparedness for terrorism since 1999, when we constructed the Laboratory Response Network (LRN) with CDC and the FBI. But on this day, September 12, 2001, the once obscure threat was palpable; it was real.  We worked with CDC to ensure that all the state labs had the tests, materials and equipment they needed in case a threat was made to human health in some sort of attack.  We made sure that all of the contact lists were accurate and that we knew with whom to consult if needed.   The LRN went onto a high state of alert – we were on the lookout for any suspicious samples or specimens.  Our members were told to report anything out of the ordinary, no matter how small it seemed.  Everyone was on edge, and for good reason.  News reports were issued daily (for weeks) and used terms like “biological or chemical warfare,” “possible use of bioweapons,” “biowarfare,” or “smallpox.” And then the question was being asked first privately and then publicly:  “Are we prepared?”  That question is still with us and always will be – the real question is for what and for how long?

Vice President Cheney was particularly concerned as President Bush had asked him upon his inauguration to take charge of overseeing intelligence matters and to conduct a study of the nation’s vulnerability to biological weapons and terrorism in general.  One vulnerability identified was access to dangerous pathogens such as anthrax, plague and pandemic strains of influenza viruses.  And public health labs had access.

On October 2nd, all the possibilities of bioterrorism became a reality.  It was on that day that an infectious disease physician recognized a possible case of inhalational anthrax in a man who was hospitalized in Palm Beach, FL.  The local health official immediately began an investigation which included having the patient’s clinical specimen sent to a lab for diagnosis.  The clinical lab couldn’t rule out anthrax, so according to protocol, they contacted Dr. Phil Lee, the Biological Defense Coordinator for the Bureau of Laboratories at the Florida Department of Health Lab in Jacksonville.  Once he received the specimen (On Wednesday October 3rd at noon) he began the analysis immediately.  The series of tests took less than 24 hours, and early on Thursday October 4th he confirmed what is now known as the index case of anthrax.  All eyes were on Florida as the index case worked and lived there, and CDC was sending investigators to his work place, AMI Media, to figure out how this could have happened.

Since the Florida anthrax case followed the 9/11 attacks so closely, it was unclear what we were dealing with, but we were at the ready.

To be continued… (Part 2 and Part 3)

6 responses so far

APHL has corporate members?!

May 05 2011 :: Published in Annual Meeting, General, Member News, Partners

By Linette Granen, MT(ASCP)DLM, Corporate Relations Manager, Association of Public Health Laboratories

“Corporate members?  Really?”  This is the response I usually get when I’m talking to a group of non-profit marketers and fundraisers about APHL’s innovative corporate membership program.  And I get a confused look on peoples’ faces when I say that our organization represents government-funded laboratories.  Many times, the next question is, “And they let you do that?”  They usually get more interested as I explain to them that it hasn’t been easy, but we have gotten buy-in from our traditional members and that our corporate members are a real membership category with membership benefits, that participate as members in our organization.  I’m finding that many non-profits, including ones like ours that have a science-based membership, may have “corporate members”although those members are part of the organization in name only.  Our “sustaining members” as they are called, do play an active role in the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).

Recently, APHL’s mission was expanded to include promotion of technologies which “assure continuous improvement in the quality of laboratory practice and health outcomes.”  At this year’s Annual Meeting, four of our highest level corporate members are facilitating their own Industry Workshops on the evening of Monday, June 4, 2011, at the Omaha Hilton.  Although not an official part of the APHL meeting, nonetheless the presentations will cover advances in technology that in the future will affect laboratory practice in our members’ laboratories and the entire laboratory industry.  Abbott will be hosting a discussion of the Plex-ID System’s foodborne bacterial pathogen assay with Becky Bell from FDA as the speaker.  Life Technologies will be presenting several new tools for reliable molecular pathogen diagnosis, including research done at CDC by Dr. Maureen Diaz, an APHL/CDC EID Fellow; also in that presentation will be an overview of their EZ Validation software aimed at streamlining the process of validation and verification of molecular assays.  Dr. Jennifer Puck, from UCSF Medical Center, will present at the PerkinElmer workshop, on how testing for severe combined immunodeficiency disorder (SCID) fits into the current newborn screening laboratory model with findings from the California pilot project.   ThermoFisher Scientific will offer an overview of challenges in trace elemental analysis and provide an opportunity to discuss the most recent “hot topics” in chemical contamination in foods and the environment, now occurring on the global stage.

Over the past six years that we have had this program, our members and staff have finally begun calling sustaining members “partners,” for that is what they truly are.  In today’s economy, representing and supporting governmental laboratories is not an easy job for APHL.  And our sustaining members understand that.   Although our main source of funding is federal dollars, our association’s support is now being cut by federal agencies.  Our sustaining members also understand that.  They share our pain and are willing to do something about it.  As a public health organization, we are also very much concerned with any health threat to the welfare of people anywhere on this planet.  Again, our sustaining members share our concern, and a few are large enough and have the resources to do something about that as well.

Last year, APHL’s sustaining membership program was highlighted in an article (written by Mikel Smith Koon, president of Mosaik Strategies, who assisted us in originally establishing the sustaining membership program) in Associations Now, which chronicled our progression from the seed of an idea in 2005 until now, where our corporate members are making a difference in our organization and our members’ laboratories and ultimately in public health.   In the article, three case studies are unfolded that include how Life Technologies (aka Applied Biosystems) assisted in the swine flu crisis of 2009, how Gen-Probe teamed up with our laboratory members to provide critical public health screening that otherwise would not have been accomplished, and how Abbott and HDR, through their volunteer and foundation arms, collaborated to build laboratories in Tanzania.   If I must say so myself, we have developed a unique method of interaction with these companies by involving them in potential public health laboratory crises.  The latest example of which is the radiation threat to this country from the Japan disaster, when we collaborated with ThermoFisher to deliver much-needed, timely information in a webinar about radiation testing, that was attended by concerned scientists and laboratorians nationwide.

So, as I’m speaking to my colleagues in other non-profits, the question then is, “How do you know which companies would be interested?” I always answer that with the question, “Which ones wouldn’t be?”  In this age of corporate social responsibility initiatives and the “health outcomes ecosystem” (which is termed such by the Ernst & Young annual “Pulse of the Industry Report” on the medical technology business sector), public-private partnership is thriving, involving support in the form of money, yes, but also involving partnership that advances innovation in ideas and technology, and ultimately leads to a better place to live for all of us.  Our corporate members and the rest of our membership realize that this priceless!!

No responses yet

Got Bricks? APHL and ECOS: Laying the Groundwork for Strategic Partnerships

Mar 15 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health, Partners

By Erinna Kinney, Specialist, Environmental Laboratory

On March 9, 2011, APHL and the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) held a seminal meeting to strengthen their strategic partnership.  ECOS, the “national non-profit, non-partisan association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders,” works to improve the capability of state environmental agencies in protecting the environment and human health in the United States.

Dr. Megan Latshaw, APHL’s environmental health director, Peter Kyriacopoulos, the association’s senior director for policy, and I spoke with ECOS Executive Director Steve Brown on issues common to state environmental agencies and state environmental laboratories.   We discussed the importance of cultivating a solid relationship between a state environmental agency and its state environmental laboratory (SEL), assurance of quality data through quality lab practices and the need for a standardized format for electronic data exchange between the States and EPA.   Other topics included the structure and value of state environmental laboratories, current economic considerations for state environmental agencies and laboratories, and the ability of SELs to meet the analytical needs of state environmental agencies across a myriad of testing services.

To foster this collaborative partnership, APHL and ECOS have agreed to bolster educational and awareness opportunities within their respective memberships.  Examples include:

  • APHL offered to host ECOS staff and/or members at a state environmental laboratory
  • ECOS invited APHL to author an issue of Green Report, an ECOS monthly topic-specific publication
  • APHL and ECOS agreed to maintain regular contact to enhance exchange of information and assistance.

As the “homebase” for environmental laboratories, APHL will continue to forge partnerships that will bring tangible benefits to public environmental laboratories.

Every brick laid is a solid relationship in the making. For APHL, it’s all in a day’s work!

No responses yet

Notes from the President: APHL Meets with FDA on Food Laboratory Concerns

Mar 01 2011 :: Published in Food Safety, Notes From the President, Partners

By Dr. Patrick Luedtke, M.D., President, APHL, Director, Unified State Laboratories, Utah Department of Health

As a member of FDA’s Council of Association Presidents, APHL recently participated in a meeting which provided the opportunity to discuss the concerns of the food laboratory community with senior FDA leadership.  Mike Taylor, Dara Corrigan, Joe Reardon, Steve Solomon, Jeff Farrar, and David Elder represented the Office of Foods and the Office of Regulatory Affairs. APHL, as well as many of the other associations present, used this opportunity to convey the crisis status of most state budgets.

A recent Institute of Medicine Report entitled Enhancing Food Safety: The Role of the Food and Drug Administration suggests that the FDA leverage state and local resources in meeting their statutory requirements while conserving dwindling federal resources. Owing to each association’s presentation, it is clear FDA officials present at the meeting now have a better appreciation of what little there is to leverage at any level of government given the current economic environment.  Despite this challenge, all agreed to continue work toward common public health goals and food supply protection.  It is also worth noting that FDA reiterated many times during the meeting their intent to improve communication channels between the Agency and their state and local partners.

Other concerns specific to the food laboratory community were addressed by APHL at this meeting.  Despite the absence of a funded working relationship between APHL and FDA, APHL offered our assistance in support of recent moves toward food laboratory accreditation, and we volunteered to participate in FDA initiatives to implement the directives in the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.   Further, we offered our training and education expertise to hold food testing courses for FDA’s customers, and we reminded FDA that many APHL member laboratories have the ability to assist with method development and validation activities.  FDA leadership was not optimistic about finding new funding sources for either the Association or state and local agencies, but they were very receptive to hearing our ideas around accreditation and training.

We are extremely grateful to have had this opportunity to meet with senior FDA partners, and we will continue to discuss collaborative opportunities that meet the needs of the FDA, APHL, and our public health and agricultural laboratory members.

2 responses so far

And the EPA Cooperative Agreement Award Goes to……

Feb 10 2011 :: Published in Environmental Health, Partners

January 20, 2011

Erinna Kinney, MPH, Specialist, Environmental Laboratories, APHL

APHL!  In a world where Academy Awards would recognize excellence in the public health in lieu of film, the award for Best Supporting Role in Coordination of a National Environmental Laboratory Network would undoubtedly honor APHL’s work in fostering the growth and development of the public environmental laboratory sector.  APHL is once more deserving of a consecutive and celebrated accolade.

As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) commitment to assisting the water sector in enhancing the capability and capacity of the nation’s environmental laboratories, APHL was awarded $2.4 million EPA Cooperative Agreement over the next six years in partnership with EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. In 2005, APHL was awarded the first EPA Cooperative Agreement to establish a “Home Base for Environmental Laboratories” and to serve as a point of contact between the EPA and environmental health laboratories.  As a second-time award recipient, APHL’s Environmental Health Program will now experience a two-fold increase in funding and further programmatic expansion in the continued support of public environmental laboratories responding to water contamination events in the United States. The new EPA Cooperative Agreement will address the following key elements:

  • Coordination and advancement of environmental laboratory sector interests among the sector and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • Identification, establishment, and maintenance of working collaborations with environmental laboratory sector and federal partners on preparedness activities with regard to water security events
  • Establishment and maintenance of programmatic activities to address gaps in laboratory testing of chemical, biological, radiological, and select agents in environmental laboratories with response to water security threats
  • Convene a national environmental laboratory conference, taskforces, and workgroups
  • Administration  of three environmental laboratory trainings
  • Launch of EPA Environmental Laboratory Fellowship Program
  • Establishment of National Environmental Laboratory Professional Week

APHL represents the principal association for the advancement of public environmental health laboratories and excitedly looks ahead to the fertile opportunities for active engagement, innovative programming, and partnership building under the awarded EPA Cooperative Agreement.

No responses yet

Latest HIV Testing Technology Can Diagnose Patients Earlier, Curb Disease Transmission

Nov 30 2010 :: Published in Infectious Diseases, Partners

December 1st marks the 23rd annual observance of World AIDS Day, a global initiative to raise awareness of the risk posed by the HIV virus and to empower communities to combat this health threat.

An article released today (Tuesday) in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), highlights the fact that despite increasing numbers of individuals that have been tested for HIV, approximately 55% of U.S. adults age 18-64 have never been tested. This data accentuates the importance of adopting policies that encourage increased testing and ensure proper linkage to care once new cases are detected, both of which are fundamental pieces of President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy released earlier this year. 

However, as state and local public health programs work to implement these policies, let us not forget the importance of having and utilizing the latest in diagnostic testing technology to ensure early and accurate detection of HIV infection.

As described in a recent article in Medical Laboratory Observer, APHL and CDC have been actively involved in updating the HIV testing recommendations that were developed in 1989. In March, the partners convened the 2010 HIV Diagnostics Conference at which experts presented the latest data on HIV screening and diagnostic methods. A major outcome of the meeting was the proposal of a single laboratory algorithm for HIV testing that incorporates the latest HIV testing technology available in the United States. 

The proposed algorithm has the potential to detect HIV infection earlier in patients that are recently infected; identify patients infected with HIV-2, a less common strain of the disease; and decrease the turn-around-time for testing in the laboratory.  Data is currently being collected to further evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm.  Ensuring that the latest technology is incorporated into US laboratory practice is vital to early diagnosis and decreased transmission of HIV in this country.

No responses yet

Labs Protect Public from Chemical Threats

Nov 16 2010 :: Published in Environmental Health, Member News, Partners

By Jennifer Pierson, MPH, Senior Specialist, Environmental Health, APHL

The word anthrax strikes fear in the hearts of many Americans, who probably still remember the events of 2001. While we cannot deny bioterrorism is a major threat, other threats exist – for example chemical attacks. For some reason the fact that tens of thousands of chemicals are produced each year and many industrial chemicals are easily obtained is not enough to garner much attention.

Public health laboratories have been building capability to respond to such attacks with the assistance of federal partners at CDC, EPA, FDA, DHS and more. Through this work, they are even better prepared to respond to non-terrorist incidents that occur almost every day. Some of the latest headlines involving chemicals include:

Most people have probably heard of such spills, fires, explosions and other events in their area. Public health and environmental laboratories often work with their local jurisdictions to ensure there are not health threats after such incidents. These laboratories may not be testing for the dreaded anthrax everyday but they are working to protect the public everyday.

Some of APHLs member laboratories have shared examples of how their preparedness training is helping them respond to other incidents:

  • The Connecticut laboratory is in regular communication with their local hospitals and because of this they were able to help identify an arsenic poisoning.
  • The Environmental lab in Pennsylvania helped to analyze water samples after a large fire and found elevated levels of chemicals in the water and runoff. Commercial labs also participating in the testing were not able to identify the potentially hazardous chemicals.
  • The State Hygienic Lab in Iowa has a strong relationship with its local Poison Control Center, and it was this relationship that led to the lab identifying the cause of illness in a sick resident. The lab was called after hours and responded quickly to test an unknown liquid the person had consumed. The lab found several harmful chemicals in the liquid and reported the results back to the patient and the Poison Control Center.

Let’s hear it for these unsung heroes working to protect US citizens everyday!

No responses yet

CDC’s Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR) Releases Their State Preparedness Report

Sep 29 2010 :: Published in Partners, Public Health Preparedness & Response

By Tony Barkey, Senior Specialist, Public Health Preparedness and Response, APHL

On September 21, 2010, CDC’s Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR) released their third preparedness report, Public Health Preparedness: Strengthening the Nation’s Emergency Response State by State. The report highlights success and challenges of preparedness and response efforts taking place at state and local health departments across the nation.

As was reported, states continue to make progress implementing Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP). COOP ensures that vital public institutions, like public health laboratories, continue to function during and after an emergency. Today’s changing threat environment and recent emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, technological emergencies and terrorist attacks, have increased the need for COOP capabilities and plans. All 50 states and DC either have a laboratory- specific COOP, are part of their state’s COOP or are in the process of developing their own plan. As we saw during the novel influenza A H1N1 outbreak, having these preparedness plans in place enabled the quick response that was seen.

The report also revealed that 49 out of 50 states and DC conducted exercises to assess the competency of sentinel clinical laboratories within their state to rule out potential bioterrorism agents. This demonstrates the outreach from the LRN reference laboratories, funded via the CDC Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement, to their partners who are often on the front line receiving samples during an emergency.

These positive results come at a time when many states are experiencing difficulties maintaining the workforce necessary for an effective response. 41% faced hiring difficulties and 28% faced retention issues. For those that reported hiring difficulties, 36% identified a lack of funding as a primary reason and another 31% reported hiring freezes.

APHL staff and members played a prominent role in the publication by providing laboratory- and state- specific data to the report. APHL’s data points, collected from the annual All-Hazards Laboratory Preparedness Survey, were used to describe issues such as workforce shortages, continuity of operations, sentinel clinical outreach and training, emergency communication, and general laboratory testing capability. If you are interested in finding out more, the report can be found here.

No responses yet

Older posts »

Sharing Buttons by Linksku