During the initial containment phase of influenza A/H1N1 2009, close contacts of cases were traced to provide antiviral prophylaxis within 48 hours after exposure and to alert them on signs of disease for early diagnosis and treatment. Passengers seated on the same row, two rows in front or behind a patient infectious for influenza, during a flight of [greater than or equal to] four hours were considered close contacts. Corien M. Swaan, of the Preparedness and Response Unit of the Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, and colleagues, evaluated the timeliness of flight-contact tracing (CT) as performed following national and international CT requests addressed to the Center of Infectious Disease Control (CIb/RIVM), and implemented by the Municipal Health Services of Schiphol Airport.
Elapsed days between date of flight arrival and the date passenger lists became available (contact details identified - CI) was used as proxy for timeliness of CT. In a retrospective study, dates of flight arrival, onset of illness, laboratory diagnosis, CT request and identification of contacts details through passenger lists, following CT requests to the RIVM for flights landed at Schiphol Airport were collected and analyzed.
Twenty-four requests for CT were identified. Three of these were declined as over four days had elapsed since flight arrival. In 17 out of 21 requests, contact details were obtained within seven days after arrival (81 percent). The average delay between arrival and CI was 3.9 days (range 2-7), mainly caused by delay in diagnosis of the index patient after arrival (2.6 days). In four flights (19 percent), contacts were not identified or only after >seven days. CI involving Dutch airlines was faster than non-Dutch airlines (P < 0,05). Passenger locator cards did not improve timeliness of CI. In only three flights contact details were identified within two days after arrival.
The researchers concluded that CT for influenza A/H1N1 2009 among flight passengers was not successful for timely provision of prophylaxis. CT had little additional value for alerting passengers for disease symptoms, as this information already was provided during and after the flight. Public health authorities should take into account patient delays in seeking medical advise and laboratory confirmation in relation to maximum time to provide post-exposure prophylaxis when deciding to install contact tracing measures. International standardization of CT guidelines is recommended. Their research was published in BMC Infectious Diseases.Â
Reference: Swaan CM, et al. Timeliness of contact tracing among flight passengers for influenza A/H1N1 2009. BMC Infectious Diseases 2011, 11:355. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-11-355
Â
Â
I Was There: An Infection Preventionist on the COVID-19 Pandemic
April 30th 2025Deep feelings run strong about the COVID-19 pandemic, and some beautiful art has come out of those emotions. Infection Control Today is proud to share this poem by Carmen Duke, MPH, CIC, in response to a recent article by Heather Stoltzfus, MPH, RN, CIC.
From the Derby to the Decontam Room: Leadership Lessons for Sterile Processing
April 27th 2025Elizabeth (Betty) Casey, MSN, RN, CNOR, CRCST, CHL, is the SVP of Operations and Chief Nursing Officer at Surgical Solutions in Overland, Kansas. This SPD leader reframes preparation, unpredictability, and teamwork by comparing surgical services to the Kentucky Derby to reenergize sterile processing professionals and inspire systemic change.
Show, Tell, Teach: Elevating EVS Training Through Cognitive Science and Performance Coaching
April 25th 2025Training EVS workers for hygiene excellence demands more than manuals—it requires active engagement, motor skills coaching, and teach-back techniques to reduce HAIs and improve patient outcomes.