# name
Isolation facilities for highly infectious diseases in Europe - A cross-sectional analysis in 16 countries

# metadata.dc.contributor.author[].value
European Network for Highly Infectious Diseases project members

# metadata.dc.description.abstract[].value
BACKGROUND: Highly Infectious Diseases (HIDs) are (i) easily
                transmissible form person to person; (ii) cause a
                life-threatening illness with no or few treatment options; and
                (iii) pose a threat for both personnel and the public. Hence,
                even suspected HID cases should be managed in specialised
                facilities minimizing infection risks but allowing
                state-of-the-art critical care. Consensus statements on the
                operational management of isolation facilities have been
                published recently. The study presented was set up to compare
                the operational management, resources, and technical equipment
                among European isolation facilities. Due to differences in
                geography, population density, and national response plans it
                was hypothesized that adherence to recommendations will vary.
                METHODS AND FINDINGS: Until mid of 2010 the European Network for
                Highly Infectious Diseases conducted a cross-sectional analysis
                of isolation facilities in Europe, recruiting 48 isolation
                facilities in 16 countries. Three checklists were disseminated,
                assessing 44 items and 148 specific questions. The median
                feedback rate for specific questions was 97.9% (n = 47/48)
                (range: n = 7/48 (14.6%) to n = 48/48 (100%). Although all
                facilities enrolled were nominated specialised facilities'
                serving countries or regions, their design, equipment and
                personnel management varied. Eighteen facilities fulfilled the
                definition of a High Level Isolation Unit'. In contrast, 24
                facilities could not operate independently from their co-located
                hospital, and five could not ensure access to equipment
                essential for infection control. Data presented are not
                representative for the EU in general, as only 16/27 (59.3%) of
                all Member States agreed to participate. Another limitation of
                this study is the time elapsed between data collection and
                publication; e.g. in Germany one additional facility opened in
                the meantime. CONCLUSION: There are disparities both within and
                between European countries regarding the design and equipment of
                isolation facilities. With regard to the International Health
                Regulations, terminology, capacities and equipment should be
                standardised.

# metadata.dc.source[].value
Articles publicats en revistes (ISGlobal)

# metadata.dc.title[].value
Isolation facilities for highly infectious diseases in Europe - A cross-sectional analysis in 16 countries