Geroncio C Fajardo1, Paula Rosenberg, Konrad Hayashi. 1. Division of Preparedness and Emerging Infections/Emergency Preparedness and Response Branch (formerly known as Division of Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response/Epidemiology, Surveillance and Response Branch), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to review information within the situation reports (SITREPs) and incident notices (INs) prepared by the Division of Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response/Epidemiology Surveillance and Response Branch, (DBPR/ESRB), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The secondary objective is to evaluate accuracy and completeness of the information provided in these documents. METHODS: The authors reviewed all SITREPs/INs prepared by DBPR/ESRB from January 2007 to June 2009. Data were abstracted for variables related to the type of incidents, the type of CDC assistance requested, the geographic origin of the calls, and the organization reporting the event or requesting CDC assistance or both. In addition, variables were also created to assess the accuracy and completeness of reports for quality improvement analysis. RESULTS: The DBPR/ESRB prepared 77 SITREPs and 22 INs. Most of them were related to unknown white powders/suspicious packages or BioWatch Actionable Reports (78%). Most calls (79%), requesting CDC assistance or not, were domestic. Almost all calls requesting CDC assistance were for clinical and/or laboratory consultation and/or request for analysis of samples. Most of the calls requesting CDC assistance came from city, county, state, or federal government agencies and military organizations (82%). However, 14 of the analyzed documents (14.4%) were misclassified, that is, a SITREP was written when it should have been an IN or vice versa. The authors also noted the absence of some relevant information among some of the documents, for example, date/time of update. CONCLUSIONS: All of the issues/incidents reported in this article to which DBPR/ESRB responded were cause for legitimate concern. However, significant improvement can be made in the preparation of these reports by CDC staff to ensure efficient and effective response from CDC and its partners. Finally, local entities may wish to develop a similar documentation and reporting process to help manage significant incidents.
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to review information within the situation reports (SITREPs) and incident notices (INs) prepared by the Division of Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response/Epidemiology Surveillance and Response Branch, (DBPR/ESRB), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The secondary objective is to evaluate accuracy and completeness of the information provided in these documents. METHODS: The authors reviewed all SITREPs/INs prepared by DBPR/ESRB from January 2007 to June 2009. Data were abstracted for variables related to the type of incidents, the type of CDC assistance requested, the geographic origin of the calls, and the organization reporting the event or requesting CDC assistance or both. In addition, variables were also created to assess the accuracy and completeness of reports for quality improvement analysis. RESULTS: The DBPR/ESRB prepared 77 SITREPs and 22 INs. Most of them were related to unknown white powders/suspicious packages or BioWatch Actionable Reports (78%). Most calls (79%), requesting CDC assistance or not, were domestic. Almost all calls requesting CDC assistance were for clinical and/or laboratory consultation and/or request for analysis of samples. Most of the calls requesting CDC assistance came from city, county, state, or federal government agencies and military organizations (82%). However, 14 of the analyzed documents (14.4%) were misclassified, that is, a SITREP was written when it should have been an IN or vice versa. The authors also noted the absence of some relevant information among some of the documents, for example, date/time of update. CONCLUSIONS: All of the issues/incidents reported in this article to which DBPR/ESRB responded were cause for legitimate concern. However, significant improvement can be made in the preparation of these reports by CDC staff to ensure efficient and effective response from CDC and its partners. Finally, local entities may wish to develop a similar documentation and reporting process to help manage significant incidents.