Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-3 (of 3 Records) |
Query Trace: Paetznick B[original query] |
---|
A policy analysis of preparedness for hurricane evacuations in the United States, 1990 to 2019: Implementation in coastal states
Logan M , Bradley BM , Chen B , Kruger J , Van Meter J , Paetznick B , Smith MJ , Romero-Steiner S . Health Secur 2021 20 (1) 65-73 Hurricane or typhoon evacuations in the United States are typically managed by state, territorial, or tribal emergency management officials with federal, state, and local agency operational support. The evacuation process may involve issuing mandatory or "voluntary" evacuation orders to alert the community and mitigate loss of life and injury. We conducted an analysis of state and local hurricane evacuation policies identified through a literature review (January 1990 to June 2019) and key informant interviews with state public health and emergency management officials in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas in October and November 2019. Findings from the literature review show that most gaps in hurricane evacuation preparedness-based on 44 policy-related publications identified in the review-could be categorized into 4 themes: shelters, evacuation decisionmaking, at-risk populations, and transportation. Findings from key informant interviews for 7 states revealed that coastal states have been able to address most of these gaps since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. However, an important remaining gap in preparedness is providing timely warnings to at-risk populations during hurricane evacuations. |
Hurricane evacuation laws in eight southern U.S. coastal states - December 2018
Kruger J , Smith MJ , Chen B , Paetznick B , Bradley BM , Abraha R , Logan M , Chang ER , Sunshine G , Romero-Steiner S . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 69 (36) 1233-1237 National Preparedness month is observed every September as a public service reminder of the importance of personal and community preparedness for all events; it coincides with the peak of the hurricane season in the United States. Severe storms and hurricanes can have long-lasting effects at all community levels. Persons who are prepared and well-informed are often better able to protect themselves and others (1). Major hurricanes can devastate low-lying coastal areas and cause injury and loss of life from storm surge, flooding, and high winds (2). State and local government entities play a significant role in preparing communities for hurricanes and by evacuating coastal communities before landfall to reduce loss of life from flooding, wind, and power outages (3). Laws can further improve planning and outreach for catastrophic events by ensuring explicit statutory authority over evacuations of communities at risk (4). State evacuation laws vary widely and might not adequately address information and communication flows to reach populations living in disaster-prone areas who are at risk. To understand the range of evacuation laws in coastal communities that historically have been affected by hurricanes, a systematic policy scan of the existing laws supporting hurricane evacuation in eight southern coastal states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas) was conducted. After conducting a thematic analysis, this report found that all eight states have laws to execute evacuation orders, traffic control (egress/ingress), and evacuation to shelters. However, only four of the states have laws related to community outreach, delivery of public education programs, and public notice requirements. The findings in this report suggest a need for authorities in hurricane-prone states to review how to execute evacuation policies, particularly with respect to community outreach and communication to populations at risk. Implementation of state evacuation laws and policies that support hurricane evacuation management can help affected persons avoid harm and enhance community resiliency (5). Newly emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, such as SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have and will continue to additionally challenge hurricane evacuations. |
Multi-laboratory testing of two-drug combinations of antifungals against Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, and Candida parapsilosis
Chaturvedi V , Ramani R , Andes D , Diekema DJ , Pfaller MA , Ghannoum MA , Knapp C , Lockhart SR , Ostrosky-Zeichner L , Walsh TJ , Marchillo K , Messer S , Welshenbaugh AR , Bastulli C , Iqbal N , Paetznick VL , Rodriguez J , Sein T . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011 55 (4) 1543-8 There are few multilaboratory studies on antifungal combinations testing to suggest a format for use in clinical laboratories. In the present study, eight laboratories tested quality control (QC) strain Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019 and clinical isolates Candida albicans 20533.043, C. albicans 20464.007, Candida glabrata 20205.075, and C. parapsilosis 20580.070. The clinical isolates had relatively high azole and echinocandin MICs. A modified CLSI M-27A3 protocol was used, with 96-well custom-made plates containing checkerboard pair-wise combinations of amphotericin B (AMB), anidulafungin (AND), caspofungin (CSP), micafungin (MFC), posaconazole (PSC), and voriconazole (VRC). The end points were scored visually and on a spectrophotometer or ELISA reader for 50% growth reduction (IC50). Combination IC50 were used to calculate summation FICIs (SigmaFIC, fractional inhibitory concentration indices) based on the Lowe additivity formula. Results revealed that IC50 values of all drug combinations were lower or equal to the IC50 of individual drugs in the combination. A majority of the SigmaFIC values were indifferent (SigmaFIC = 0.51 -2.0), but no antagonism was observed (SigmaFIC ≥ 4). Synergistic combinations (SigmaFIC ≤ 0.5) were found from both visual and spectrophotometric readings for AMB-PSC against C. glabrata and for AMB-AND and AMB-CSP against C. parapsilosis. Additional synergistic interactions were revealed by either of the two end points for AMB-AND, AMB-CSP, AMB-MCF, AMB-PSC, AMB-VRC, AND-PSC, CSP-MCF, and CSP-PSC. The percent agreements among participating laboratories ranged from 37.5 % (lowest) for AND-CAS and POS-VOR and 87.5% (highest) for AB-MF and AND-CAS. Median SigmaFIC values showed wide dispersion, and inter-laboratory agreements were less than 85% in most instances. Additional studies are needed to improve inter-laboratory reproducibility of antifungal combination testing. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure