No abstract

Objective:International airports, ports, and ground crossings are required to have health units for undertaking public health measures during routine times and specific measures during the time of public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). This study was conducted at a ground crossing of North India to assess the implementation status of International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) at a ground crossing in the prevention and control of public health emergencies and to assess the risk of imported infections from a ground crossing.Methods:A qualitative study was conducted at the selected point of entry. The World Health Organization (WHO) core capacity assessment tool and in-depth interviews were used for data collection in the form of meetings and visits to isolation sites, and general observations were conducted regarding facilities on routine and other infrastructure and equipment that can be used during emergencies. Respondents were recruited using purposive methods.Results:The findings reveal that there is lack of awareness among the travelers, which increases the risks of spreading diseases. The overall implementation status at the ground crossing according to the assessment conducted using WHO Tool was 76%. It showed the need for further strengthening of the implementation at the site. Gaps were identified regarding the local capacity for handling chemical, radiological and nuclear hazards, and shortage of regular staff through stakeholders.Conclusion:The findings from this study, as well as the suggestions and recommendations given by stakeholders, should help revise the current strategies of action. Hence, the gaps identified should be fulfilled to better respond to PHEIC at the ground crossings.

Background WHO has declared the COVID-19 as Pandemic on 11th March, 2020. It is important to break the chain of transmission by quarantining the persons with high-risk exposure. Understanding the reasons for quarantine will help in reducing the exposures and thus reducing the chances of quarantine. Methods A validated risk assessment tool based on National Centre for Disease Control guidelines was used for the risk assessment of HCWs. The forms of HCWs who underwent risk assessment between April-November, 2020 were analyzed for reasons of quarantine. The positivity rates among high-risk and low-risk groups were compared. Results Out of 1414 HCWs who were assessed, 345 were categorized as high-risk exposure and were quarantined. The most common reasons for quarantine were performance of aerosol generating procedure without recommended personal protection equipment (PPE) (34%), exposure to COVID-19 positive patient without mask for more than 20 minutes at the distance less than 1 m (30%) and having food/tea together (27%). The positivity rate was 8.4% among high-risk and 1.9% among low-risk exposure group (p-value: <0.001). The positivity among low risk category was more in the second half (19/466; 4.1%) as compared to first half (1/603; 0.2%) of the study period. This might be due to exposure from non-hospital sources as second half coincides with first wave of the pandemic. Conclusion Not using recommended PPE and having tea/food breaks together were the most common reasons for quarantine. Key messages Strict enforcement of recommended PPE and scattered tea and food breaks can reduce high-risk exposures.