Search

Context Case investigation and contact tracing are fundamental public health strategies for controlling and preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Although the principles behind these strategies are not new, the capacity and operational requirements needed to support disease investigation during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic are unprecedented. This article analyzes the implementation of case investigation and contact tracing in controlling COVID-19 transmission during the early stages of the US pandemic response (January 20 through August 31, 2020). Program implementation Governmental public health agencies mobilized to expand case investigation and contact tracing programs in the early months of the pandemic. In doing so, they encountered a range of challenges that included rapidly scaling up the workforce; developing and subsequently revising guidance and protocols specific to COVID-19 as more was learned about the virus over time; defining job functions; encouraging public acceptance of and participation in case investigation and contact tracing; and assessing the utility of these activities during both the containment and mitigation phases of outbreak response. COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing programs presented an array of opportunities for health departments to innovate, especially around technology to support public health efforts, as well as opportunities to address health equity and advance community resilience. Conclusion Lessons learned from disease intervention specialists, guidance and resources from federal agencies and national partners, and peer-to-peer exchange of promising practices can support jurisdictions encountering early implementation challenges. Further research is needed to assess COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing program models and innovations, as well as strategies for implementing these activities during containment and mitigation phases.

State and local collaboration is critical to effective preparedness and response planning. Through various assessments, the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) is tracking the way in which local and state public health agencies are coordinating their planning efforts to ensure adequate bioterrorism and emergency response capacities. NACCHO's analysis of planning provides a case study of effective and ineffective collaboration. NACCHO intends to share these lessons to provide local and state public health agencies with strategies for enhancing collaboration in the future.

There is a paucity of information about the nation's local governmental public health agency (LPHA) workforce. Without additional research, crucial questions about the individuals providing front-line public health services remain unanswered. Current national efforts to develop a public health workforce research agenda must include strategies for collecting basic data on local governmental public health workers. The work of enumerating and classifying LPHA staff is complicated, but not impossible. Projects to improve LPHA performance and discussions of the certification of public health workers are incomplete without current and accurate data on the individuals comprising our nation's public health system. The need to describe basic facets of the LPHA workforce is not trivial. As city and county budgets are cut and LPHAs are left scrambling to cover lost positions, data are needed to inform important decisions about what kinds of LPHA staff are needed to keep a community healthy.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the most common bloodborne infection in the United States. To determine the capacity of local health departments to respond to concerns about HCV, local health officers were surveyed regarding HCV programs and needs. Of 612 respondents, fewer reported offering HCV services (education, counseling, testing) compared with those for HIV. Most respondents reported that technical assistance would be needed for HCV services and that such services should be integrated into existing HIV programs. Many local health departments may be unprepared for a growing need for public HCV services; integrated HCV-HIV programs should be considered.