Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-7 (of 7 Records) |
Query Trace: Gibbins JD[original query] |
---|
Large animal veterinarians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding livestock abortion-associated zoonoses in the United States indicate potential occupational health risk
Cherry CC , Sureda MEN , Gibbins JD , Hale CR , Stapleton GS , Jones ES , Nichols MC . J Am Vet Med Assoc 2022 260 (7) 1-9 OBJECTIVE: To understand large animal veterinarians' knowledge of select zoonotic diseases that cause livestock abortions and identify barriers to using personal protective equipment (PPE). SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 469 veterinarians currently working with livestock. PROCEDURES: We sent an electronic survey invitation to large animal veterinarians through various veterinary organizations. Respondents answered questions addressing knowledge and prior experience with select abortion-associated zoonotic diseases, resources available for infection control, attitudes and barriers to PPE use, and demographics. RESULTS: Median participant age was 49 years (range, 22 to 82 years), and 54% (235/438) were male. Half of veterinarians (185/348) were contacted 5 or fewer times per year to consult on livestock abortions. No veterinarians surveyed answered all questions on zoonotic disease transmission correctly. Personal protective equipment access varied, from 99% (289/290) having access to gloves to 20% (59/290) having access to respirators. Concerns for spreading disease to other animals (136/289 [47%]) and to other humans (108/287 [38%]) ranked as the most common reported motivators for PPE use. Reported barriers to PPE use among survey participants were the inconvenience of taking PPE into the field (101/286 [35%]) and the inconvenience of wearing PPE (97/286 [34%]). Access to PPE was not correlated with PPE use. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surveyed veterinarians had limited knowledge of transmission of select abortion-associated zoonotic diseases. Incomplete understanding might lead to inappropriate PPE selection, preventable disease exposure, or missed opportunities for client education. Inconvenience was a primary reason PPE was not used. |
Assessment of One Health knowledge, animal welfare implications, and emergency preparedness considerations for effective public health response
Pimentel LC , May AC , Iskander JK , Banks RE , Gibbins JD . Public Health Rep 2021 137 (5) 964-971 OBJECTIVES: Information on knowledge of public health professionals about health aspects of the human-animal interface, referred to as One Health, is limited. The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with animal welfare attitudes, practices, and One Health awareness among US Public Health Service (USPHS) officers to assess preparedness for public health response. METHODS: USPHS officers participated in an online, self-administered survey from February 15 through March 2, 2018. A total of 1133 of 6474 (17.5%) USPHS officers responded. We collected information on officers' demographic characteristics, animal welfare attitudes and practices, volunteer and work exposure to animals, and One Health knowledge. We compared (1) One Health knowledge and animal work exposure (deployment, regular assignment, or none) and (2) animal welfare importance and animal work exposure. To adjust for demographic characteristics associated with One Health knowledge, we used multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: One-third of nonveterinary officers reported encountering animals during deployment, and 65% reported that animal welfare was very or extremely important. We found no difference in One Health knowledge between nonveterinary officers who participated in deployments involving animals and nonveterinary officers who had no work exposure to animals (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71-1.75). Nonveterinary officers who participated in animal-related public health activities during regular assignment were more likely to have One Health knowledge than nonveterinary officers who had no work exposure to animals (aOR = 7.88; 95% CI, 5.36-11.59). CONCLUSIONS: One Health knowledge and awareness should be further explored in the current US public health workforce to identify training needs for emergency preparedness and other collaborative opportunities. |
COVID-19 Among Workers in Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities - 19 States, April 2020.
Dyal JW , Grant MP , Broadwater K , Bjork A , Waltenburg MA , Gibbins JD , Hale C , Silver M , Fischer M , Steinberg J , Basler CA , Jacobs JR , Kennedy ED , Tomasi S , Trout D , Hornsby-Myers J , Oussayef NL , Delaney LJ , Patel K , Shetty V , Kline KE , Schroeder B , Herlihy RK , House J , Jervis R , Clayton JL , Ortbahn D , Austin C , Berl E , Moore Z , Buss BF , Stover D , Westergaard R , Pray I , DeBolt M , Person A , Gabel J , Kittle TS , Hendren P , Rhea C , Holsinger C , Dunn J , Turabelidze G , Ahmed FS , deFijter S , Pedati CS , Rattay K , Smith EE , Luna-Pinto C , Cooley LA , Saydah S , Preacely ND , Maddox RA , Lundeen E , Goodwin B , Karpathy SE , Griffing S , Jenkins MM , Lowry G , Schwarz RD , Yoder J , Peacock G , Walke HT , Rose DA , Honein MA . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 69 (18) Congregate work and residential locations are at increased risk for infectious disease transmission including respiratory illness outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is primarily spread person to person through respiratory droplets. Nationwide, the meat and poultry processing industry, an essential component of the U.S. food infrastructure, employs approximately 500,000 persons, many of whom work in proximity to other workers (1). Because of reports of initial cases of COVID-19, in some meat processing facilities, states were asked to provide aggregated data concerning the number of meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19 and the number of workers with COVID-19 in these facilities, including COVID-19-related deaths. Qualitative data gathered by CDC during on-site and remote assessments were analyzed and summarized. During April 9-27, aggregate data on COVID-19 cases among 115 meat or poultry processing facilities in 19 states were reported to CDC. Among these facilities, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 4,913 (approximately 3%) workers, and 20 COVID-19-related deaths were reported. Facility barriers to effective prevention and control of COVID-19 included difficulty distancing workers at least 6 feet (2 meters) from one another (2) and in implementing COVID-19-specific disinfection guidelines.* Among workers, socioeconomic challenges might contribute to working while feeling ill, particularly if there are management practices such as bonuses that incentivize attendance. Methods to decrease transmission within the facility include worker symptom screening programs, policies to discourage working while experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19, and social distancing by workers. Source control measures (e.g., the use of cloth face covers) as well as increased disinfection of high-touch surfaces are also important means of preventing SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Mitigation efforts to reduce transmission in the community should also be considered. Many of these measures might also reduce asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission (3). Implementation of these public health strategies will help protect workers from COVID-19 in this industry and assist in preserving the critical meat and poultry production infrastructure (4). |
Workplace safety and health for the veterinary health care team
Gibbins JD , MacMahon K . Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2015 45 (2) 409-26, vii-viii Veterinary clinic employers have a legal and ethical responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace. Clinic members are responsible for consistently using safe practices and procedures set up by their employer. Development and implementation of a customized comprehensive workplace safety and health program is emphasized, including an infection control plan. Occupational safety and health regulations are reviewed. The hazards of sharps, animal bites and scratches, and drugs are discussed. Strategies to prevent or minimize adverse health effects and resources for training and education are provided. |
Campylobacter infection in poultry-processing workers, Virginia, USA, 2008-2011
de Perio MA , Niemeier RT , Levine SJ , Gruszynski K , Gibbins JD . Emerg Infect Dis 2013 19 (2) 286-8 During a health hazard evaluation, we investigated 29 cases of laboratory-diagnosed Campylobacter infection among workers at a poultry-processing plant. Most infected employees worked at the plant <1 month, worked as live hangers, and lived at a state-operated center. To lessen the infection risk, we recommended improvements to engineering and administrative controls at the plant. |
Epidemiologic investigation of immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy among abattoir workers exposed to porcine brain
Holzbauer SM , DeVries AS , Sejvar JJ , Lees CH , Adjemian J , McQuiston JH , Medus C , Lexau CA , Harris JR , Recuenco SE , Belay ED , Howell JF , Buss BF , Hornig M , Gibbins JD , Brueck SE , Smith KE , Danila RN , Lipkin WI , Lachance DH , Dyck PJ , Lynfield R . PLoS One 2010 5 (3) e9782 BACKGROUND: In October 2007, a cluster of patients experiencing a novel polyradiculoneuropathy was identified at a pork abattoir (Plant A). Patients worked in the primary carcass processing area (warm room); the majority processed severed heads (head-table). An investigation was initiated to determine risk factors for illness. METHODS AND RESULTS: Symptoms of the reported patients were unlike previously described occupational associated illnesses. A case-control study was conducted at Plant A. A case was defined as evidence of symptoms of peripheral neuropathy and compatible electrodiagnostic testing in a pork abattoir worker. Two control groups were used - randomly selected non-ill warm-room workers (n = 49), and all non-ill head-table workers (n = 56). Consenting cases and controls were interviewed and blood and throat swabs were collected. The 26 largest U.S. pork abattoirs were surveyed to identify additional cases. Fifteen cases were identified at Plant A; illness onsets occurred during May 2004-November 2007. Median age was 32 years (range, 21-55 years). Cases were more likely than warm-room controls to have ever worked at the head-table (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 6.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-26.7), removed brains or removed muscle from the backs of heads (AOR, 10.3; 95% CI, 1.5-68.5), and worked within 0-10 feet of the brain removal operation (AOR, 9.9; 95% CI, 1.2-80.0). Associations remained when comparing head-table cases and head-table controls. Workers removed brains by using compressed air that liquefied brain and generated aerosolized droplets, exposing themselves and nearby workers. Eight additional cases were identified in the only two other abattoirs using this technique. The three abattoirs that used this technique have stopped brain removal, and no new cases have been reported after 24 months of follow up. Cases compared to controls had higher median interferon-gamma (IFNgamma) levels (21.7 pg/ml; vs 14.8 pg/ml, P<0.001). DISCUSSION: This novel polyradiculoneuropathy was associated with removing porcine brains with compressed air. An autoimmune mechanism is supported by higher levels of IFNgamma in cases than in controls consistent with other immune mediated illnesses occurring in association with neural tissue exposure. Abattoirs should not use compressed air to remove brains and should avoid procedures that aerosolize CNS tissue. This outbreak highlights the potential for respiratory or mucosal exposure to cause an immune-mediated illness in an occupational setting. |
General public health considerations for responding to animal hoarding cases
Castrodale L , Bellay YM , Brown CM , Cantor FL , Gibbins JD , Headrick ML , Leslie MJ , MacMahon K , O'Quin JM , Patronek GJ , Silva RA , Wright JC , Yu DT . J Environ Health 2010 72 (7) 14-18 Animal hoarding is an under-recognized problem that exists in most communities and adversely impacts the health, welfare, and safety of humans, animals, and the environment. These guidelines address public health and worker safety concerns in handling situations where animal hoarding or other dense concentrations of animals have caused unhealthy and unsafe conditions. Because animal hoarding situations are often complex, a full response is likely to be prolonged and require a cross-jurisdictional multiagency effort. Each animal hoarding case has unique circumstances related to the types and numbers of animals involved, the physical structure(s) where they are being kept, and the health status of the animals, among other factors that must be taken into account in planning a response. Some general public health considerations and associated recommendations for personal protective equipment use are presented that apply to all cases, however. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure