Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:12:37.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges of Designing and Implementing High Consequence Infectious Disease Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2018

Joan M. King ,
Chetan Tiwari ,
Armin R. Mikler  and
Martin O’Neill II
Joan M. King*
Affiliation:
Center for Computational Epidemiology and Response Analysis (CeCERA), University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
Chetan Tiwari
Affiliation:
Center for Computational Epidemiology and Response Analysis (CeCERA), University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
Armin R. Mikler
Affiliation:
Center for Computational Epidemiology and Response Analysis (CeCERA), University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
Martin O’Neill II
Affiliation:
Center for Computational Epidemiology and Response Analysis (CeCERA), University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Joan M. King, Center for Computational Epidemiology and Response Analysis (CeCERA), University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76201 (e-mail: JoanKing@my.unt.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ebola is a high consequence infectious disease—a disease with the potential to cause outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics with deadly possibilities, highly infectious, pathogenic, and virulent. Ebola’s first reported cases in the United States in September 2014 led to the development of preparedness capabilities for the mitigation of possible rapid outbreaks, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) providing guidelines to assist public health officials in infectious disease response planning. These guidelines include broad goals for state and local agencies and detailed information concerning the types of resources needed at health care facilities. However, the spatial configuration of populations and existing health care facilities is neglected. An incomplete understanding of the demand landscape may result in an inefficient and inequitable allocation of resources to populations. Hence, this paper examines challenges in implementing CDC’s guidance for Ebola preparedness and mitigation in the context of geospatial allocation of health resources and discusses possible strategies for addressing such challenges. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:563–566)

Keywords

response planninghigh consequence infectious diseasegeographic mappingdisease outbreakspolicy making
Type
Policy Analysis
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 563 - 566
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hospital preparedness: a tiered approach. Interim guidance for preparing frontline healthcare facilities for patients under investigation (PUIs) for Ebola virus disease (EVD). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/Ebola/healthcare-us/preparing/frontline-healthcare-facilities.html. Updated August 28, 2015.Google Scholar
2. Higgs, G. A literature review of the use of GIS-based measures of access to health care services. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2004;5(2):119-139.Google Scholar
3. WHO Ebola Response Team. Ebola virus disease in West Africa—The first 9 months of the epidemic and forward projections. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1481-1495.Google Scholar
4. Braden, J, Beauregard, K. Health status and access to care of rural and urban populations (AHCPR publications No. 94-0031). National Expenditure Survey Research Finding: 18, Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research. Rockville, MD: Public Health Service; 1994.Google Scholar
5. Larson, SL, Fleishman, JA. Rural-urban differences in usual source of care and ambulatory service use. Med Care. 2003;41(7):III65-III74.Google Scholar
6. Goodman, DC, Fisher, E, Stukel, TA, Chang, C. The distance to community medical care and the likelihood of hospitalization: is closer always better? Am J Public Health. 1997;87(7):1144-1150.Google Scholar
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Newsroom. CDC increasing supply of Ebola-specific personal protective equipment for U.S. hospitals. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p1107-Ebola-ppe.html. Published November 2014. Accessed September 2017.Google Scholar
8. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. Lebanon, NH: The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 2008.Google Scholar
9. Comber, AJ, Brunsdon, C, Radburn, R. A spatial analysis of variations in health access: linking geography, socio-economic status and access perceptions. Int J Health Geographics. 2011;10(44):1-11.Google Scholar
10. Kadri, F, Chaabane, S, Tahon, C. A simulation-based decision support system to prevent and predict strain situations in emergency department systems. Simul Modell Pract Theory. 2014;42:32-52.Google Scholar
11. Djanatliev, A, German, R. Prospective healthcare decision-making by combined system dynamics, discrete-event and agent-based simulation. 2013 Winter Simulations Conference (WSC); 2013.Google Scholar
12. Jimenez, T, Mikler, AR, Tiwari, C. A novel space partitioning algorithm to improve current practices in facility placement. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Human. 2012;42(5):1194-1205.Google Scholar
13. Rachah, A, Torres, DFM. Mathematical modelling, simulation, and optimal control of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc. 2015;2015:1-9.Google Scholar
14. Legrand, J, Grais, RF, Boelle, PY, Valleron, AJ, Flahault, A. Understanding the dynamics of Ebola epidemics. Epidemiol Infect. 2006;135(4):610-621.Google Scholar
15. Grigorieva, E, Khailov, E. Optimal intervention strategies for a SEIR control model of Ebola epidemics. Mathematics. 2015;3(4):961-983.Google Scholar
16. Do, TS, Lee, YS. Modeling the spread of Ebola. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2016;7(1):43-48.Google Scholar
17. World Health Organization. Ebola virus disease factsheet. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/. Published January 2016. Accessed September 2017.Google Scholar
18. Schneider, T, Mikler, A. RE-PLAN: a computational framework for REsponse PLan ANalysis. Int J Funct Inform Personalised Med. 3(2):103-121.Google Scholar
19. O’Neill, M, Mikler, AR, Indrakanti, S, Tiwari, C, Jimenez, T. RE-PLAN: an extensible software architecture to facilitate disaster response planning. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernetics Systems. 44(12):1569-1583. http://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2014.2332137 Google Scholar
20. Schneider, T, Mikler, AR, O’Neill, M. Computational tools for evaluating bioemergency contingency plans. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Disaster Management; 2009.Google Scholar
21. De’Cock, K. CDC global health strategy 2012-2015. Centers for Disease Health and Prevention; 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/strategy/pdf/cdc-globalhealthstrategy.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2015.Google Scholar