[Evaluation of the Robert Koch Institute's missions for COVID-19 outbreak investigations by local and state health authorities in Germany].

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-19 DOI:10.1007/s00103-025-04032-6
Mario Martín-Sánchez, Claudia Siffczyk, Anna Loenenbach, Katja Kajikhina, Nadine Zeitlmann
{"title":"[Evaluation of the Robert Koch Institute's missions for COVID-19 outbreak investigations by local and state health authorities in Germany].","authors":"Mario Martín-Sánchez, Claudia Siffczyk, Anna Loenenbach, Katja Kajikhina, Nadine Zeitlmann","doi":"10.1007/s00103-025-04032-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Under the German Infection Protection Act, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) can support local health authorities (LHAs) and state health authorities (SHAs) in outbreak investigations after an administrative request for assistance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, about 50 RKI teams supported LHAs and SHAs in outbreak investigations (virtually or on site). Reasons for or against requesting assistance as well as the assessment of outbreak deployments that have taken place should be collected and analysed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 9 March 2023 and 12 May 2023, the RKI provided all LHAs (n = 376) and SHAs (n = 10) with a link to an online survey that included questions about whether, how often, and why or why not an RKI field team was requested. If a deployment took place, we asked for an assessment of the usefulness and timeliness of the deployment, their satisfaction with it and the work load involved.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 146 authorities (136 LHAs and 10 SHAs) responded; 21 (14%) requested an RKI team at least once and gave feedback on 22 deployments. Common reasons for not requesting were no need (60%, 56/94) and no experience with (31%, 29/34) or knowledge of the assistance request process (29%, 27/94). The 22 deployments took place between February 2020 and September 2021. The reasons for requesting assistance were lack of professional expertise (n = 18), personnel resources (n = 13) or political/public pressure (n = 12). The biggest benefit of the RKI deployments was answering epidemiological questions (n = 18). The SHAs and LHAs were satisfied with 20 of the deployments and the RKI team arrived on time for 19. The additional workload for the requesting authorities was judged to be reasonable.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>LHAs and SHAs rated the RKI deployments positively. Regarding the assistance request processes, there was a need for information that should be covered by training and provision of information material.</p>","PeriodicalId":9562,"journal":{"name":"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz","volume":" ","pages":"458-466"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11950042/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-025-04032-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Under the German Infection Protection Act, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) can support local health authorities (LHAs) and state health authorities (SHAs) in outbreak investigations after an administrative request for assistance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, about 50 RKI teams supported LHAs and SHAs in outbreak investigations (virtually or on site). Reasons for or against requesting assistance as well as the assessment of outbreak deployments that have taken place should be collected and analysed.

Methods: Between 9 March 2023 and 12 May 2023, the RKI provided all LHAs (n = 376) and SHAs (n = 10) with a link to an online survey that included questions about whether, how often, and why or why not an RKI field team was requested. If a deployment took place, we asked for an assessment of the usefulness and timeliness of the deployment, their satisfaction with it and the work load involved.

Results: A total of 146 authorities (136 LHAs and 10 SHAs) responded; 21 (14%) requested an RKI team at least once and gave feedback on 22 deployments. Common reasons for not requesting were no need (60%, 56/94) and no experience with (31%, 29/34) or knowledge of the assistance request process (29%, 27/94). The 22 deployments took place between February 2020 and September 2021. The reasons for requesting assistance were lack of professional expertise (n = 18), personnel resources (n = 13) or political/public pressure (n = 12). The biggest benefit of the RKI deployments was answering epidemiological questions (n = 18). The SHAs and LHAs were satisfied with 20 of the deployments and the RKI team arrived on time for 19. The additional workload for the requesting authorities was judged to be reasonable.

Discussion: LHAs and SHAs rated the RKI deployments positively. Regarding the assistance request processes, there was a need for information that should be covered by training and provision of information material.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[德国地方和州卫生当局对罗伯特·科赫研究所COVID-19疫情调查任务的评估]。
背景:根据德国感染保护法,罗伯特·科赫研究所(RKI)可以在行政援助请求后支持地方卫生当局(LHAs)和州卫生当局(SHAs)进行疫情调查。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,约有50个RKI团队支持lha和sha进行疫情调查(虚拟或现场)。应收集和分析支持或反对请求援助的理由以及对已发生的疫情部署的评估。方法:在2023年3月9日至2023年5月12日期间,RKI向所有lha (n = 376)和sha (n = 10)提供了一个在线调查的链接,其中包括是否、多久、为什么或为什么不要求RKI现场团队。如果进行了部署,我们要求对部署的有用性和及时性、他们对部署的满意度以及所涉及的工作量进行评估。结果:共有146个机构(136个地方自治政府和10个地方自治政府)做出了回应;21家公司(14%)至少向RKI团队提出了一次要求,并对22个部署提供了反馈。不请求的常见原因是没有需要(60%,56/94)和没有经验(31%,29/34)或不了解援助请求过程(29%,27/94)。这22次部署发生在2020年2月至2021年9月之间。请求援助的原因是缺乏专业知识( = 18)、人力资源( = 13)或政治/公众压力( = 12)。RKI部署的最大好处是回答流行病学问题(n = 18)。sha和lha对其中20个部署感到满意,RKI团队按时到达了19个。提出请求的当局的额外工作量被认为是合理的。讨论:lha和sha对RKI部署给予了积极评价。关于请求援助的过程,需要提供应由培训和提供新闻材料涵盖的资料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
145
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Monatszeitschrift Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz - umfasst alle Fragestellungen und Bereiche, mit denen sich das öffentliche Gesundheitswesen und die staatliche Gesundheitspolitik auseinandersetzen. Ziel ist es, zum einen über wesentliche Entwicklungen in der biologisch-medizinischen Grundlagenforschung auf dem Laufenden zu halten und zum anderen über konkrete Maßnahmen zum Gesundheitsschutz, über Konzepte der Prävention, Risikoabwehr und Gesundheitsförderung zu informieren. Wichtige Themengebiete sind die Epidemiologie übertragbarer und nicht übertragbarer Krankheiten, der umweltbezogene Gesundheitsschutz sowie gesundheitsökonomische, medizinethische und -rechtliche Fragestellungen.
期刊最新文献
[Trends of antibiotic use and resistance in livestock from 2014 to 2024 using the example of fattening turkeys and broiler chickens as well as the effects on humans]. [Pornography in everyday life and sexual education among adolescents: survey results from 8th and 9th grade students in North Rhine-Westphalia]. [Parenthood after sexual violence in childhood and adolescence-decision-making, pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting]. [Sexual and contraceptive behavior of adolescents and young adults in Germany: current results of the representative survey "Youth Sexuality"]. [Male contraception-scientific foundations and contemporary progress].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1