The resistant Salmonella Heidelberg infection outbreak was definitely a major public health issue. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) have covered the case extensively, having provided a vast amount of relevant information, including a visual one. Specifically, the epi curve diagram offered by the CDC has demonstrated that the case of the resistant Salmonella Heidelberg infection has affected multiple people, with the number of those infected having reached its peak in September 2013.
The case itself has also been covered in substantial detail, with key data having been provided to prevent similar outbreaks in the future and detail the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen strategy. Specifically, the report defined the case as an instance of an epidemic due to the rapid outbreak of the disease and its uncontrollable spreading (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). Given the circumstances, the specified definition appears to be the most reasonable one.
Differentiating between different types of cases allows for locating a solution faster. In the case study under analysis, a confirmed case occurred once the necessary diagnostic tests were administered, and the “fingerprints” of the disease were located accurately (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014, para. 12). A probable case implied meeting clinical criteria and being appointed for determining the presence of a confirmed case. Finally, a possible case suggested the presence of specific symptoms in a patient.
Remarkably, the time trend of Salmonella Heidelberg was quite unusual, with its slow development occurring from February to August 2013, after which a sharp rise occurred in September 2013. Afterward, a similarly sharp drop in the instances of Salmonella Heidelberg was observed, the epidemic ending in July 2014 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014).
Examining the outbreak’s magnitude leaves one with the impression that it was rather quick yet that it had devastating effects on the affected population. Specifically, the fact that an enormous number of people became infected within a minimal amount of time suggests that the epidemic had tremendous power and led to many adverse outcomes for all those affected. Therefore, the magnitude of the epidemic should be deemed as large.
Despite the devastating impact of the epidemic of the Salmonella Heidelberg infection, it was managed accordingly and, most importantly, led to some critical inferences. Specifically, the necessity to develop a functional disaster prevention and risk management strategy based on the observed public health trends and threats becomes evident when considering the case. Additionally, the importance of vaccination becomes apparent when reviewing the massive impact that the epidemic had on the target population and especially vulnerable groups. Overall, the Salmonella Heidelberg epidemic has demonstrated the importance of being aware of key health risks and threats.
The information provided regarding the case of the Salmonella Heidelberg infection allows for defining the period of exposure quite accurately. Namely, the epi curve of the disease development shows that the period of exposure may take at least a month, which implies that the disease is quite difficult to spot. However, as soon as the Salmonella Heidelberg infection starts manifesting itself by causing major symptoms to occur in patients, it starts affecting the patient’s health rapidly and leading to detrimental outcomes. Therefore, developing risk management strategies and the related plans for minimizing the threat and promptly responding to emerging cases must be regarded as vital.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Multistate outbreak of multidrug-resistant Salmonella Heidelberg infections linked to foster farms brand chicken (final update). CDC. Web.