Showing posts with label swine flu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label swine flu. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2009

Vaccine Priorities are Out

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met today and issued guidelines on who should get the vaccine for H1N1 "swine" flu first.  As you know, I have strong opinions about how these guidelines, or any guidelines, are going to affect people and how they will be received.  So, now that they're out, let's see how we're doing at mitigating the impact up front.

I give Day 1 of this process a C-, max.  Don't get me wrong -- I don't have any problem with what appear to be the new guidelines.  What I have a problem with is that I can find well over 800 articles about them by googling "H1N1 vaccine guidelines," but the guidelines themselves are nowhere to be found. 

All 800 articles have roughly the same information:  the first wave of vaccinations will go to pregnant women, children and young adults 6 months to 24 years, healthcare workers, adult caregivers of infants and adults under 65 with other medical conditions.  If there isn't enough vaccine to accomplish this (since this is about half the U.S. population) they will further pare it down.  This information was apparently delivered in a press conference this afternoon.  As far as I can find, no press release was distributed, and there is nothing on the CDC website, the government flu website or the ACIP website (in fact, the postings to the ACIP website seem to be running at least a month out of date).  You can get the transcript from the Federal News Service -- if you happen to already have a subscription. 

In short, the government is relying solely on the press to get the word out.  This is pretty much what they did in April and May, and I refer you to my post on the 2009 Flu Pandemic to see how that can go really wrong.  You need only look at some of the headlines to see why relying solely on the press is a bad idea.  Most news outlets have fairly low key headlines running, like CNN.com, whose headline reads "Federal Panel Issues H1N1 Vaccine Guidelines."  On the other hand, we have ABC News, which is running the sensationalist tagline, "Who Gets Swine Flu Vaccine Before You Do?"  The government is managing the facts, but not how those facts are presented. 

It's probably true that they can't control how the story gets spun.  But what they could do,  which they aren't, is put out the guidelines in writing on the web so that people who want more information can get it, and so news organizations can link to it.  They also could, in the same document, discuss not only why they are making these recommendations, but why those who aren't going to get the vaccine in the first wave should still feel calm.  Some detailed, scientific reassurance is in order to frame this as a way of keeping everyone as safe as possible -- after all, an effective vaccination program actually provides some protection for those who have not been immunized, since they are less likely to be exposed.

Once again, the powers that be are failing to understand a basic principle of crisis communication, which is that they not only have to get the information out there, but they also need to anticipate what other information will be out there and where it will come from, as well as how people will react to it.  Yes, it's complicated to put out something in writing at the same time as a press conference that is based on a decision that has just been made.  But it's not impossible.  And they need to get better at it, because with this particular flu, people want their information to be accurate and timely, and timeliness is measured in minutes, not days.  And frankly, they really don't have that much time to start getting this right.

(Don't miss the previous Quarterbacking on H1N1)


Monday, July 27, 2009

The Ethics of Flu and the Trauma of Ethics

Shortly after 9-11, as the anthrax attacks were starting to unfold, I remember a friend of mine telling me that she had called her doctor to make sure that her smallpox vaccination was up to date and arrange to get a booster.  She was quite surprised to learn that not only was such a booster not recommended for her, it wasn't available.  There literally was no vaccine out there in the world.  When the WHO declared that smallpox had been eradicated back in the 1980's, they stopped manufacturing the vaccine for general use. 

This was surprising to most affluent Americans, because we are generally used to being able to get whatever health care we are willing to pay for.  The notion that a technology exists and we can't have it -- not just that our doctors don't want us to have it but that we can't have it -- goes against the way we believe the health care system works.  Unlike some aspects of our world view, such as the ones I discussed yesterday involving trauma with children, a lot of people actually believed this one, from our heads to our hearts to our guts, to be true.  We really thought we could have any health care that existed.  We were wrong.

I suspect we are up against that issue once again, because the medical research community is coming out with a vaccine for H1N1, probably in early October, and there is a good likelihood that there will be more people who want it right away than the initial supply.  Over time, the supply will probably increase and everyone can have it, but in the meantime, someone is going to have to decide who gets it.  Or, more to the point, somebody is going to have to decide who doesn't.  Of course, this isn't news to the powers that be, who issued guidelines and recommendations on this before H1N1 had come on the scene (although it is notable that the United States government flu website still refers to a pandemic declaration as a hypothetical event, despite the fact that it was issued in June).

We've dealt with a shortage of flu vaccine before.  In 2004 there was a production quality problem that limited the supply of seasonal flu vaccine, and for several months you could only get a vaccine in the U.S. if you were "high risk."  I remember this distinctly because I was pregnant, and hence I could get the vaccine and my daughter could not.  But this time will be different, because not everyone wants the seasonal vaccine, and an awful lot more people are going to want this one.  An awful lot of people who don't know that "no" is even a possibility are going to be told no.

But it gets worse, because another thing that has kept us relatively calm about H1N1 is that we know that science has advanced in its treatment of respiratory illness.  We comfort ourselves that if the 1918 flu pandemic repeats itself, we have ventilators to keep people alive.  We also know that health care is more advanced in the U.S. than in most parts of Mexico, so we believe we'll be more "OK" than they were this spring.

There's only one problem.  If a pandemic like 1918 comes around again, there very well may not be enough ventilators to help everyone who needs one.  The recommendation is that, in a severe and deadly epidemic, ventilators be used only for people who are most likely to survive.  Let me put it another way.  In the event of a "Spanish Flu"-like epidemic, you could be critically ill and they would not attempt to save you, because giving you treatment would take it away from someone else with a better chance.

I first heard about this charming nugget of information during a training with the public health community in November, before "swine flu" was even in our lexicon.  This was the same one, you may recall, at which it was stated that people would not overwhelm ER's because they would be told not to go to the ER.  And we all know how well that worked this spring.  At any rate, the plan I heard was for only those who were likely to survive to even get to the hospital.  Those too sick to have a good chance would be left at the triage center, where they would die.  Oh, and I wasn't supposed to tell anyone.

Well, the cat's out of the bag, because the Canadian national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, reported this morning that New York's pandemic working group is recommending removing or withdrawing ventilators by those likely to die during a serious pandemic.  So now I can rant publicly.

Don't get me wrong.  I get it.  I get that we can all only get all the medical care in the world if we have available all the medical care in the world, and that given limited resources we should give them to the people most likely to benefit from them.  I also get that that is a complex and difficult line to draw, and that's why we have medical ethicists out there working on this stuff.  I am also glad I am not them.

But let's get down to brass tacks.  If this pandemic gets bad, particularly in terms of the virulence of the virus, implementing "the plan" is going to be hard.  People are going to go to the hospital when we ask them not to.  People who are low on the priority list are not going to like that they can't get vaccine.  And people are going to get really, really upset when their loved ones are not allowed a ventilator or some other piece of intervention.  That is a given.  What are we going to do about it? 

If there's a plan out there, I haven't seen it.  I know in my county that they are including mental health in the planning.  They are also aware that the likelihood is that about 80% of us won't be able to respond because of our own illness or illness in our family.  If you read the federal guidelines, it looks like perhaps we are in the second tier of vaccination priority, but no mention is made of volunteers, which accounts for an awful lot of us.  I fear that once again we are in danger of underestimating the panic and even the rage that is going to occur.  All I can say is, I'm ready to be part of the solution and I promise not to be part of the problem.  I hope there are a lot of like-minded folks out there.

(For related Quarterbacking, see Getting It Right the Second Time, Flu Preparedness:  Body AND Mind, and The 2009 Flu Pandemic)


Monday, July 20, 2009

Getting it Right the Second Time

The New York Times is reporting today about efforts in New York City to better manage another outbreak of H1N1 "swine" flu. Not surprisingly, ER's were pretty flooded by the "worried well" in April and May, so they are trying to beef up their triage system outside of the hospitals. They are also instituting new communications plans.

This is all welcome news to me and my readers. I have posted twice about the need for better communication and attention to the panic side of the pandemic (see Flu Preparedness: Body AND Mind and The 2009 Flu Pandemic). It looks like New York is thinking in the right directions, and that's all good.

What is surprising, however, is the numbers being cited. Conventional wisdom, based on biological terror attacks such as the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attack in the Tokyo Subway System, holds that anywhere from 80-95% (with 80% being the most commonly cited number) of people seeking medical attention in a public health emergency are either the "worried well" or at best do not need to be hospitalized. However, based on the Times' numbers, on the worst days of the outbreak in May, 40-50 people were hospitalized while an average of more than 1,400 people were seen in the Emergency Room for "flu like symptoms." That means that the "worried well" and the not very sick accounted for about 96.5% of those going to the ER.

For those of us who have prepped for disaster with the so-called "80-20 rule" (80% of people will be worried well, while 20% will be actually ill), this is a sobering statistic. What it means is that we have vastly underprepared for people's level of panic about this disease, and the triage plans that even the most prepared jurisdictions have might not be enough.

Unless, of course, we get better at communicating and more directive about who should do what. Telling people that the symptoms include "fever," for example, is not going to be enough. Public Health authorities are going to need to say,
If you do not have a fever higher than X [and I leave it to them to determine what X is] you do not have the flu. Do not come to the triage center.
Note how I phrased this. It will not be enough to say not to come to the triage center. They need to say why. Doing so will increase credibility and make people listen more. It won't be perfect, but it might tamp things down to that 80-20 ratio. Because if it's going to be 96-4 and we have a major outbreak, our health system is in deep trouble.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Flu Preparedness: Body AND Mind

Last Fall, the Quarterback attended a meeting of local CISM teams and local public health officials to discuss planning for a public health emergency, such as a biological terrorist attack or avian flu. It was quite informative and interesting, and gave me a lot of insight when H1N1 "swine" flu came around at the end of April. One moment in particular really stuck with me:

We were discussing plans to set up "triage centers" around the county. The idea was that, in a major health emergency, hospital resources would be used solely to treat the very sick. Because we know that roughly 80% of people who seek health care in these situations are actually the "worried well," we don't want those people overwhelming hospital emergency rooms. By setting up remote centers, health professionals can figure out who is actually sick and send them to the hospital, those who are panicked but not sick can get some support, and the hospital can concentrate on healing. The media would be used to let people know that they should go to their triage center, not the ER. Great.

The Quarterback, being an impudent sort, asked what seemed to me like an obvious question: What are you going to do about the people who go to the ER anyway. The response? People will be told not to go to the ER. But what about the people who do? They will have been told not to.

I bring this up, because the Department of Health and Human Services had a big flu preparedness summit yesterday, and kicked off a public contest to create a relevant Public Service Announcement on preventing the spread of influenza. The Quarterback tries, really tries, not to be cynical, but I can't help but think that for all we learned from our practice run back in April with H1N1 "swine" flu, there's a lot we still haven't learned. I have ranted at some length in a previous post about the failures of communication and the failure to take mental health into consideration this spring. The message may be cleaner and smoother now, but it is still pretty much the same.

The stance of the Obama administration seems to now be that if we tell people "Don't panic, just prepare" and we give them things to do to prepare, they won't panic. It's not that there's no truth to this. Panic is in part caused by a feeling of powerlessness, and giving people something useful to do combats that feeling. As my regular readers know, our minds desperately want to feel like the situation is under control, and certainly being useful helps with that.

But that's not all our minds need. Our minds need good information, and our minds need to feel heard. It is all well and good to tell us not to panic. Many if not most people won't, just as most people won't go to the ER if we tell them to go to a triage center. But just as we have to have a plan to deal with the people who come to the ER anyway, we have to plan for those who are panicking when they don't need to.

In the Quarterback's humble opinion, it would help the panicking folks a lot to hear, "We totally understand why you might be anxious about this. We are confident that we are ready, and here is why. If you are feeling really anxious, here are some things you can do to help yourself and your family deal with the stress." We know some people are going to overreact. Are we ready to deal with them preemptively as well as reactively?

The administration is telling schools to get ready to be "significantly impacted." As someone in the front lines of that battlefield, the Quarterback appreciates the heads up. But mostly what they are talking about is preparing for school closures, significant student and staff illnesses, and possibly administering vaccine on site. That's all important, but that's not what I'm preparing for right now. While the nurses at school work on that side of things, I'm thinking about how we can best prevent panic among our parents and staff. Last year, we had parents asking if we were going to stop serving tacos in the lunch room (which is both racist and incredibly, incredibly stupid) and teachers refusing to teach kids who had vacationed in Mexico. Telling those people not to panic is not going to be enough. Telling them what to do about their panic might help.

Friday, June 12, 2009

The 2009 Flu Pandemic

Well, it finally happened. Yesterday, the World Health Organization moved the Pandemic Alert Level to 6 (pandemic underway), in honor of a huge increase in H1N1 cases in Australia, which is in flu season. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this is that it wasn't anywhere close to the top story in yesterday's news. Think back to the first week of May, and what would have happened if the alert level had gone to 6 then.

In the beginning of May, we were all in a complete panic here in the U.S.. Now we seem to be uttering a collective yawn. What happened? And why couldn't we have been so laid back 6 weeks ago?

The biggest difference for folks in the U.S. between now and 6 weeks ago is that, having lived with H1N1 in our midst for a month and a half, we have realized that we are not all going to die. On May 1, we were not so sure. Between the time that "swine flu" came to the U.S. and yesterday, we learned a lot of information: that the seasonal flu kills 36,000 Americans every year, so a few deaths was not a big deal by comparison (although clearly still a big deal to those patients and their families); that H1N1 in the United States turns out to have a death rate of less than .1% of cases, which is the rate for a typical seasonal flu; and that "pandemic" actually doesn't have anything to do with the severity of the disease.

You might argue that we had to live through the last 6-8 weeks to really believe that this wasn't that big a deal, but I'm not sure that's true. This is a situation where folks in authority managed their message so well that they didn't actually give us what we needed.

If you watched TV, listened to the radio, or read e-mail the last week of April or the first week of May, you heard the lockstep mantra: don't panic but do be concerned, wash your hands often, stay home if you are sick. I got emails from my school district as an employee, and from that same district as a parent. I also heard from the local health department, the state health department, the CDC, the WHO, my congressman and President Obama. And all of that was good, but it wasn't enough, as evidenced by the fact that people were flooding emergency rooms, demanding that neighbors who had been to Mexico be quarantined, and even, in one case, asking why we were still serving tacos in our lunchrooms (really, the Monday Morning Crisis Quarterback never lies!)

The problem was that we didn't really understand what was going on. The data about flu mortality rates and how this compared to the typical flu came out achingly slowly, and was not well publicized. Joe Biden's "off the cuff" statements that we shouldn't even be taking the subway didn't help.

Good information was hard to find. Each health organization was reporting statistics to the next one up the chain once a day, but not every one was reporting at the same time. The result was that the CDC might report at 11 AM EDT on Tuesday, but the data they reported from Michigan might have been reported to them Monday at noon. In turn, the WHO, upon getting the CDC's report, might well wait 12 or more hours to update their data. The result was that the WHO might be reporting cases from Michigan on Tuesday morning, almost 48 hours later than Michigan published them. Speaking of Michigan, in the Quarterback's fair state the Department of Community Health was releasing press releases that did not match what was on their website, so if you heard something on the news and wanted to learn more, you would go to the website and discover that what you heard did not appear to be true. I'm sure other jurisdictions had their own problems.

The result of this was that the most up to date place to get information was Wikipedia, which is probably not where most public health officials want people to be getting their information. And the mantra of "don't panic" lost credibility, because it was so obvious that the factual information was jumbled that it seemed likely the information about the severity of the situation was also jumbled.

Then, of course, there was the issue of what the United States was doing to respond. If you went online looking for information about pandemic influenza preparedness, you might well have found this chart. If you look at it carefully, you will note that "first human case in North America" is U.S. Response stage 4, which maps to WHO alert phase 6, which is a pandemic. But we were only in alert phase 5. Why?? Because the U.S. stages presumed that the disease would emerge in Asia, and were fairly useless for a Mexico/U.S. outbreak.

In the end, though, the most important problem that kept us from hearing "don't panic" was the complete and utter failure on the part of public figures to acknowledge that we were already panicking. There is an idea out there that if we manage the factual message, people will manage their emotions, and that if we acknowledge the emotions we cause people to be emotional. In CISM, however, we find that the opposite is true. Acknowledging the emotional response, normalizing it, and letting people know that it's understandable lends credibility to everything else you say.

In the long run, it may not matter. However, if H1N1 comes back around in a more virulent form next flu season, the Quarterback hopes that the CDC has more credibility in getting us take it seriously than it did in getting us not to panic this spring.

Meet the Quarterback

My Photo
Naomi Zikmund-Fisher
is a clinical social worker, former school Principal and a Crisis Consultant for schools and community organizations. You can learn more about her at www.SchoolCrisisConsultant.com
View my complete profile

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Quarterback for Kindle