Journal of Environmental Health最新文献

Environmental health (EH) professionals provide critical services and respond to complex and multifaceted public health threats. The role of these professionals is continually re-emphasized by emergencies requiring rapid and effective responses to address environmental issues and ensure protection of the public's health. Given the prominence of the EH profession within the public health framework, assessing the governmental health department workforce, practice, and current and future challenges is crucial to ensure EH professionals are fully equipped and prepared to protect the nation's health. Such an understanding of the EH profession is lacking; therefore, we initiated Understanding the Needs, Challenges, Opportunities, Vision, and Emerging Roles in Environmental Health (UNCOVER EH). Through a web-based survey, we identified EH professional demographics, characteristics, education, practice areas, and aspects of leadership and satisfaction. We distributed the survey to a convenience sample of EH professionals working in health departments, limiting the generalizability of results to the entire EH workforce. The results were strengthened, however, by purposive sampling strategies to represent varied professional and workforce characteristics in the respondent universe. The UNCOVER EH initiative provides a primary source of data to inform EH workforce development initiatives, improve the practice, and establish uniform benchmarks and professional competencies.

Environmental health specialists often perform environmental assessments (EAs) when a suspected or confirmed foodborne illness outbreak is linked to a food establishment. Information from EAs helps officials determine the cause of the outbreak and develop strategies to prevent future outbreaks; however, EAs are not always conducted. To determine facilitators and barriers to conducting EAs, we analyzed open-ended responses reported to the National Environmental Assessment Reporting System about these assessments. We found that EAs were conducted most often when illness was identified, a jurisdiction had a policy to investigate illnesses, and there were resources for such a response. EAs were not conducted in instances such as limited resources, insufficient training, uncooperative facility personnel, or if the establishment fell outside of health department jurisdiction. Identifying the facilitators and barriers to conducting EAs can enable health departments to develop strategies that improve their ability to conduct EAs.

NEHA strives to provide up-to-date and relevant information on environmental health and to build partnerships in the profession. In pursuit of these goals, we feature this column on environmental health services from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in every issue of the Journal. In these columns, authors from CDC's Water, Food, and Environmental Health Services Branch, as well as guest authors, will share insights and information about environmental health programs, trends, issues, and resources. The conclusions in these columns are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of CDC. Marcy Barnett is the emergency preparedness liaison with the California Department of Public Health Center for Environmental Health. She is the program manager for California's Environmental Health Training in Emergency Response (EHTER). Bernice Zaidel is the assistant director of curriculum development and evaluation at the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP). She is the FEMA/CDP lead for partnering with CDC's Water, Food, and Environmental Health Services Branch and developing EHTER courses. Martin Kalis is a public health advisor with CDC's Water, Food, and Environmental Health Services Branch. He is the program manager for CDC's EHTER.

As part of our continued effort to highlight innovative approaches to improve the health and environment of communities, the Journal is pleased to publish a bimonthly column from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ATSDR serves the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances. The purpose of this column is to inform readers of ATSDR's activities and initiatives to better understand the relationship between exposure to hazardous substances in the environment, its impact on human health, and how to protect public health. The conclusions of this column are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of ATSDR or CDC.

We investigated an outbreak of eight Legionnaires' disease cases among persons living in an urban residential community of 60,000 people. Possible environmental sources included two active cooling towers (air-conditioning units for large buildings) <1 km from patient residences, a market misting system, a community-wide water system used for heating and cooling, and potable water. To support a timely public health response, we used real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to identify Legionella DNA in environmental samples within hours of specimen collection. We detected L. pneumophila serogroup 1 DNA only at a power plant cooling tower, supporting the decision to order remediation before culture results were available. An isolate from a power plant cooling tower sample was indistinguishable from a patient isolate by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, suggesting the cooling tower was the outbreak source. PCR results were available <1 day after sample collection, and culture results were available as early as 5 days after plating. PCR is a valuable tool for identifying Legionella DNA in environmental samples in outbreak settings.

The main objective of this research was to ascertain the association between organizational characteristics of local health departments (LHDs) and environmental health (EH) services rendered in the community. Data used for the analysis were collected from LHDs by the National Association of County and City Health Officials for its 2013 national profile study of LHDs. We analyzed the data during 2016. Apart from understanding basic characteristics of LHDs in the nation, we introduced new measures of these characteristics, including "EH full-time equivalents" per 100,000 population and "other revenue" (revenues from fees and fines) per capita. The association of these and other organizational characteristics with EH services were measured using likelihood ratio χ² and t-tests. Out of 34 EH services considered, LHDs directly provided an average of 12 different services. As many as 41% of the 34 EH services were not available in more than 10% of the communities served by LHDs. About 70% of communities received some services from organizations other than LHDs. All the available organizational characteristics of LHDs had association with some of the EH services. Although we might assume an increase in per capita expenditure could result in an increase in LHDs' direct involvement in providing EH services, we found it to be true only for five (15%) of the EH services. The variation of EH services provided in communities could be explained by a combination of factors such as fee generation, community needs, type of governance, and population size.