scholarly journals A novel approach for evaluating contact patterns and risk mitigation strategies for COVID-19 in English primary schools with application of structured expert judgement

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 201566
Author(s):  
R. S. J. Sparks ◽  
W. P. Aspinall ◽  
E. Brooks-Pollock ◽  
R. M. Cooke ◽  
L. Danon ◽  
...  

Personal contacts drive COVID-19 infections. After being closed (23 March 2020) UK primary schools partially re-opened on 1 June 2020 with social distancing and new risk mitigation strategies. We conducted a structured expert elicitation of teachers to quantify primary school contact patterns and how contact rates changed upon re-opening with risk mitigation measures in place. These rates, with uncertainties, were determined using a performance-based algorithm. We report mean number of contacts per day for four cohorts within schools, with associated 90% confidence ranges. Prior to lockdown, younger children (Reception and Year 1) made 15 contacts per day [range 8.35] within school, older children (Year 6) 18 contacts [range 5.55], teaching staff 25 contacts [range 4.55] and non-classroom staff 11 contacts [range 2.27]. After re-opening, the mean number of contacts was reduced by 53% for young children, 62% for older children, 60% for classroom staff and 64% for other staff. Contacts between teaching and non-teaching staff reduced by 80%. The distributions of contacts per person are asymmetric with heavy tail reflecting a few individuals with high contact numbers. Questions on risk mitigation and supplementary structured interviews elucidated how new measures reduced daily contacts in-school and contribute to infection risk reduction.

Author(s):  
Stephen RJ Sparks ◽  
William P Aspinall ◽  
Ellen Brooks-Pollock ◽  
Leon Danon ◽  
Roger Cooke ◽  
...  

Background Contact patterns are the drivers of close-contacts infections, such as COVID-19. In an effort to control COVID-19 transmission in the UK, schools were closed on 23 March 2020. With social distancing in place, Primary Schools were partially re-opened on 1 June 2020, with plans to fully re-open in September 2020. The impact of social distancing and risk mitigation measures on childrens contact patterns is not known. Methods We conducted a structured expert elicitation of a sample of Primary Headteachers to quantify contact patterns within schools in pre-COVID-19 times and how these patterns were expected to change upon re-opening. Point estimates with uncertainty were determined by a formal performance-based algorithm. Additionally, we surveyed school Headteachers about risk mitigation strategies and their anticipated effectiveness. Results Expert elicitation provides estimates of contact patterns that are consistent with contact surveys. We report mean number of contacts per day for four cohorts within schools along with a range at 90% confidence for the variations of contacts among individuals. Prior to lockdown, we estimate that, mean numbers per day, younger children (Reception and Year 1) made 15 contacts [range 8..35] within school, older children (Year 6) 18 contacts [range 5..55], teaching staff 25 contacts [range 4..55) and non-classroom staff 11 contacts [range 2..27]. Compared to pre-COVID times, after schools re-opened the mean number of contacts were reduced by about 53% for young children, about 62% for older children, about 60% for classroom staff and about 64% for other staff. Contacts between teaching and non-teaching staff reduced by 80%, which is consistent with other independent estimates. The distributions of contacts per person are asymmetric indicating a heavy tail of individuals with high contact numbers. Conclusions We interpret the reduction in childrens contacts as a consequence of efforts to reduce mixing with interventions such as forming groups of children (bubbles) who are organized to learn together to limit contacts. Distributions of contacts for children and adults can be used to inform COVID-19 transmission modelling. Our findings suggest that while official DfE guidelines form the basis for risk mitigation in schools, individual schools have adopted their own bespoke strategies, often going beyond the guidelines.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (22) ◽  
pp. 7960
Author(s):  
Federica Cotecchia ◽  
Francesca Santaloia ◽  
Vito Tagarelli

Nowadays, landslides still cause both deaths and heavy economic losses around the world, despite the development of risk mitigation measures, which are often not effective; this is mainly due to the lack of proper analyses of landslide mechanisms. As such, in order to achieve a decisive advancement for sustainable landslide risk management, our knowledge of the processes that generate landslide phenomena has to be broadened. This is possible only through a multidisciplinary analysis that covers the complexity of landslide mechanisms that is a fundamental part of the design of the mitigation measure. As such, this contribution applies the “stage-wise” methodology, which allows for geo-hydro-mechanical (GHM) interpretations of landslide processes, highlighting the importance of the synergy between geological-geomorphological analysis and hydro-mechanical modeling of the slope processes for successful interpretations of slope instability, the identification of the causes and the prediction of the evolution of the process over time. Two case studies are reported, showing how to apply GHM analyses of landslide mechanisms. After presenting the background methodology, this contribution proposes a research project aimed at the GHM characterization of landslides, soliciting the support of engineers in the selection of the most sustainable and effective mitigation strategies for different classes of landslides. This proposal is made on the assumption that only GHM classification of landslides can provide engineers with guidelines about instability processes which would be useful for the implementation of sustainable and effective landslide risk mitigation strategies.


Author(s):  
Agnes Ann Feemster ◽  
Melissa Augustino ◽  
Rosemary Duncan ◽  
Anand Khandoobhai ◽  
Meghan Rowcliffe

Abstract Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify potential failure points in a new chemotherapy preparation technology and to implement changes that prevent or minimize the consequences of those failures before they occur using the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) approach. Methods An FMEA was conducted by a team of medication safety pharmacists, oncology pharmacists and technicians, leadership from informatics, investigational drug, and medication safety services, and representatives from the technology vendor. Failure modes were scored using both Risk Priority Number (RPN) and Risk Hazard Index (RHI) scores. Results The chemotherapy preparation workflow was defined in a 41-step process with 16 failure modes. The RPN and RHI scores were identical for each failure mode because all failure modes were considered detectable. Five failure modes, all attributable to user error, were deemed to pose the highest risk. Mitigation strategies and system changes were identified for 2 failure modes, with subsequent system modifications resulting in reduced risk. Conclusion The FMEA was a useful tool for risk mitigation and workflow optimization prior to implementation of an intravenous compounding technology. The process of conducting this study served as a collaborative and proactive approach to reducing the potential for medication errors upon adoption of new technology into the chemotherapy preparation process.


Author(s):  
Leigh McCue

Abstract The purpose of this work is to develop a computationally efficient model of viral spread that can be utilized to better understand influences of stochastic factors on a large-scale system - such as the air traffic network. A particle-based model of passengers and seats aboard a single-cabin 737-800 is developed for use as a demonstration of concept on tracking the propagation of a virus through the aircraft's passenger compartment over multiple flights. The model is sufficiently computationally efficient so as to be viable for Monte Carlo simulation to capture various stochastic effects, such as number of passengers, number of initially sick passengers, seating locations of passengers, and baseline health of each passenger. The computational tool is then exercised in demonstration for assessing risk mitigation of intervention strategies, such as passenger-driven cleaning of seating environments and elimination of middle seating.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4;23 (7;4) ◽  
pp. E335-E342
Author(s):  
Jason Friedrich

Background: More patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) are presenting to spine and pain practices for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedures for chronic pain. Although the potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) affecting CIED function is known with RFA procedures, available guidelines do not specifically address CIED management for percutaneous RFA for zygapophyseal (z-joint) joint pain, and thus physician practice may vary. Objectives: To better understand current practices of physicians who perform RFA for chronic z-joint pain with respect to management of CIEDs. Perioperative CIED management guidelines are also reviewed to specifically address risk mitigation strategies for potential EMI created by ambulatory percutaneous spine RFA procedures. Study Design: Web-based provider survey and narrative review. Setting: Multispecialty pain clinic, academic medical center. Methods: A web-based survey was created using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). A survey link was provided via e-mail to active members of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS), American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, as well as distributed freely to community Pain Physicians and any receptive academic departments of PM&R or Anesthesiology. The narrative review summarizes pertinent case series, review articles, a SIS recommendation statement, and multi-specialty peri-operative guidelines as they relate specifically to spine RFA procedures. Results: A total of 197 clinicians participated in the survey from diverse clinical backgrounds, including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, radiology, neurosurgery, and neurology, with 81% reporting fellowship training. Survey responses indicate wide variability in provider management of CIEDs before, during, and after RFA for z-joint pain. Respondents indicated they would like more specific guidelines to aid in management and decision-making around CIEDs and spine RFA procedures. Literature review yielded several practice guidelines related to perioperative management of CIEDs, but no specific guideline for percutaneous spine RFA procedures. However, combining the risk mitigation strategies provided in these guidelines, with interventional pain physician clinical experience allows for reasonable management recommendations to aid in decision-making. Limitations: Although this manuscript can serve as a review of CIEDs and aid in management decisions in patients with CIEDs, it is not a clinical practice guideline. Conclusions: Practice patterns vary regarding CIED management in ambulatory spine RFA procedures. CIED presence is not a contraindication for spine RFA but does increase the complexity of a spine RFA procedure and necessitates some added precautions. Key words: Radiofrequency ablation, neurotomy, cardiac implantable electrical device, zygapophyseal joint, spondylosis, neck pain, low back pain, chronic pain


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Nguyen ◽  
Kevin T. Kline ◽  
Shehzad Merwat ◽  
Sheharyar Merwat ◽  
Gurinder Luthra ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in elective and outpatient procedures. Guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provided a framework for gradual reopening of outpatient clinical operations. As the infrastructure to restart endoscopy has been more clearly described, patient concerns regarding viral transmission during the procedure have been identified. Moreover, the efficacy of the measures in preventing transmission have not been clearly delineated. Methods We identified patients with pandemic-related procedure cancellations from 3/16/2020 to 4/20/2020. Patients were stratified into tier groups (1–4) by urgency. Procedures were performed using our hospital risk mitigation strategies to minimize transmission risk. Patients who subsequently developed symptoms or tested for COVID-19 were recorded. Results Among patients requiring emergent procedures, 57.14% could be scheduled at their originally intended interval. COVID-19 concerns represented the most common rescheduling barrier. No patients who underwent post-procedure testing were positive for COVID-19. No cases of endoscopy staff transmission were identified. Conclusions Non-COVID-19 related patient care during the pandemic is a challenging process that evolved with the spread of infection, requiring dynamic monitoring and protocol optimization. We describe our successful model for reopening endoscopy suites using a tier-based system for safe reintroduction of elective procedures while minimizing transmission to patients and staff. Important barriers included financial and transmission concerns that need to be addressed to enable the return to pre-pandemic utilization of elective endoscopic procedures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document