Search

Undetected infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contributes to transmission in nursing homes, settings where large outbreaks with high resident mortality have occurred (1,2). Facility-wide testing of residents and health care personnel (HCP) can identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections and facilitate infection prevention and control interventions (3-5). Seven state or local health departments conducted initial facility-wide testing of residents and staff members in 288 nursing homes during March 24-June 14, 2020. Two of the seven health departments conducted testing in 195 nursing homes as part of facility-wide testing all nursing homes in their state, which were in low-incidence areas (i.e., the median preceding 14-day cumulative incidence in the surrounding county for each jurisdiction was 19 and 38 cases per 100,000 persons); 125 of the 195 nursing homes had not reported any COVID-19 cases before the testing. Ninety-five of 22,977 (0.4%) persons tested in 29 (23%) of these 125 facilities had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. The other five health departments targeted facility-wide testing to 93 nursing homes, where 13,443 persons were tested, and 1,619 (12%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. In regression analyses among 88 of these nursing homes with a documented case before facility-wide testing occurred, each additional day between identification of the first case and completion of facility-wide testing was associated with identification of 1.3 additional cases. Among 62 facilities that could differentiate results by resident and HCP status, an estimated 1.3 HCP cases were identified for every three resident cases. Performing facility-wide testing immediately after identification of a case commonly identifies additional unrecognized cases and, therefore, might maximize the benefits of infection prevention and control interventions. In contrast, facility-wide testing in low-incidence areas without a case has a lower proportion of test positivity; strategies are needed to further optimize testing in these settings.

Suicidal thoughts and behaviors among youths are important public health concerns in Utah, where the suicide rate among youths consistently exceeds the national rate and has been increasing for nearly a decade (1). In March 2017, CDC was invited to assist the Utah Department of Health (UDOH) with an investigation to characterize the epidemiology of fatal and nonfatal suicidal behaviors and identify risk and protective factors associated with these behaviors, among youths aged 10-17 years. This report presents findings related to nonfatal suicidal behaviors among Utah youths. To examine the prevalence of suicidal ideation and attempts among Utah youths and evaluate risk and protective factors, data from the 2015 Utah Prevention Needs Assessment survey were analyzed. Among 27,329 respondents in grades 8, 10, and 12, 19.6% reported suicidal ideation and 8.2% reported suicide attempts in the preceding 12 months. Significant risk factors for suicidal ideation and attempts included being bullied, illegal substance or tobacco use in the previous month, and psychological distress. A significant protective factor for suicidal ideation and attempts was a supportive family environment. UDOH, local health departments, and other stakeholders are using these findings to develop tailored suicide prevention strategies that address multiple risk and protective factors for suicidal ideation and attempts. Resources such as CDC's Preventing Suicide: A Technical Package of Policy, Programs, and Practices (2) can help states and communities identify strategies and approaches using the best available evidence to prevent suicide, which include tailored strategies for youths.

In 2016, Zika virus disease developed in a man (patient A) who had no known risk factors beyond caring for a relative who died of this disease (index patient). We investigated the source of infection for patient A by surveying other family contacts, healthcare personnel, and community members, and testing samples for Zika virus. We identified 19 family contacts who had similar exposures to the index patient; 86 healthcare personnel had contact with the index patient, including 57 (66%) who had contact with body fluids. Of 218 community members interviewed, 28 (13%) reported signs/symptoms and 132 (61%) provided a sample. Except for patient A, no other persons tested had laboratory evidence of recent Zika virus infection. Of 5,875 mosquitoes collected, none were known vectors of Zika virus and all were negative for Zika virus. The mechanism of transmission to patient A remains unknown but was likely person-to-person contact with the index patient.