As of Jan. 31, 2016, a total of 28,639 cases and 11,316 deaths have been attributed to Ebola, figures that are assumed to significantly underestimate the actual scope of the 2014 Ebola hemorrhagic fever outbreak in West Africa. In the United States, there were also two imported cases and two locally acquired cases reported in September/October 2014.
"This outbreak stimulated high-level discussions about how to prevent the global transmission and spread of Ebola," explained Sheldon H. Jacobson, a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "One strategy recommended by the World Health Organization required exit screening at airports for passengers who depart from countries with Ebola. Passengers with a high-risk exposure to or symptoms of Ebola are denied boarding under this approach.
"With exit screening from such countries, out of approximately 80,000 departing travelers from August to November 2014, none were reported as symptomatic with Ebola. However, since the physical condition of a passenger can deteriorate during a long international flight, entry screening at destination countries was also instituted as an auxiliary precaution to prevent the entry of passengers with Ebola into their country."
In a recent study, published in Preventive Medicine, Jacobson and his colleagues provide an alternative policy for Ebola entry screening at airports in the United States.
"Security measures implemented after 9/11 taught us a lot about what not to do," Jacobson added. "We learned that finding the one person who intends to do harm out of several million passengers is akin to finding a needle in a haystack.
"This alternative policy in regards to Ebola transmission incorporates a social contact tracing risk level, in addition to the current health risk level used by the CDC. It requires additional passenger input data, taking into account not only a passenger's exposure to Ebola, but also the potential to conduct social contact tracing if they are not initially monitored or their movements are not initially restricted yet later become ill with Ebola."
The performances of both the CDC policy and the alternative policy were compared and analyzed using a scenario-cost-based sensitivity analysis and an expected-cost-based optimization model analysis.
"Indeed, using a secondary risk level such as the potential footprint for social contact tracing level may be a useful consideration when the current CDC policy is evaluated," said Jacobson, who has conducted research on aviation security for more than 20 years. "Although the implementation of the secondary risk level requires additional data collection costs and time, the potential societal and public health benefits may justify such expenditures and efforts."
According to the authors, the United States initiated entry screening in August 2014 and enhanced its entry screening program after the first imported Ebola case was diagnosed. The majority of passengers entering the United States from the affected West African countries (94%) arrived at one of five major international airports (New York - JFK, Washington-Dulles, Newark, Chicago-O'Hare, and Atlanta-Hartsfield; note that beginning in late October 2014, all such passengers were required to flying into these five airports). Through November 2014, approximately 12,000 such passengers arrived in the United States, but no confirmed cases were reported among these passengers based on entry screening.
The results presented in the study provide information and guidance for public health decision-makers to enhance the current CDC policy, by using additional information that may impact and influence monitoring and movement restriction decisions.
In addition to Jacobson, study co-authors included Ge Yu from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Janet Jokela, MD, MPH, FACP, FIDSA, from the College of Medicine at Illinois. The paper, "A Double-risk Monitoring and Movement Restriction Policy for Ebola Entry Screening at Airports in the United States," is available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009174351630041X.
Source: University of Illinois College of Engineering
Stay prepared and protected with Infection Control Today's newsletter, delivering essential updates, best practices, and expert insights for infection preventionists.
Breaking the Cycle of Silence: Why Sharps Injuries Go Unreported and What Can Be Done
Published: July 24th 2025 | Updated: July 23rd 2025Despite decades of progress in health care safety, a quiet but dangerous culture still lingers: many health care workers remain afraid to report sharps injuries, fearing blame more than the wound itself.
US Withdrawal From UNESCO Signals a Dangerous Step Back for Global Science
July 22nd 2025In a decision heavy with consequence and light on foresight, the US has once again chosen to walk away from UNESCO, leaving behind not just a seat at the table, but a legacy of global scientific leadership that now lies in question.
Pathogen Pulse: Facilities Need the SPD, Yersinia Enterocolitica Outbreak, and More
July 22nd 2025From unsterilized surgical tools in Colorado to a years-long methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) outbreak in Virginia and a surging measles crisis in Canada, recent headlines reveal the fragile front lines of infection prevention and the high stakes when systems fail.
Telemedicine's Transformative Role in PPE Distribution and Sterile Equipment Management
July 22nd 2025In an era defined by digital transformation and post-pandemic urgency, telemedicine has evolved beyond virtual visits to become a vital infrastructure for delivering personal protective equipment (PPE) and managing sterile supplies. By enabling real-time forecasting, remote quality control, and equitable distribution, telemedicine is revolutionizing how health care systems protect both patients and providers.
Reducing Hidden Risks: Why Sharps Injuries Still Go Unreported
July 18th 2025Despite being a well-known occupational hazard, sharps injuries continue to occur in health care facilities and are often underreported, underestimated, and inadequately addressed. A recent interview with sharps safety advocate Amanda Heitman, BSN, RN, CNOR, a perioperative educational consultant, reveals why change is overdue and what new tools and guidance can help.