Lab Matters - Spring 2013

Public Health Preparedness and response

3 Sentinel Clinical Laboratory Partnerships & Outreach

4 What’s in the Field: An Overview of First Responder Technologies

5 Responding to Ricin Threats

6 New Strategy to Monitor and Evaluate Laboratory Biosafety Programs

7 First Draft of the National Health Security Preparedness Index Released

environmental Health

8 Idaho: Ready to Meet Multiple Electronic Reporting Requirements

9 Harmful Algal Blooms: With Summer’s Warmth Comes a Potential Hazard

newborn screening and genetics

10 Renewing the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act

11 NewSTEPs Kicks Off Technical Assistance Activities with Pilot Evaluation Site Visit

Infectious diseases

18 Estimating the Cost of Influenza Testing in Public Health Laboratories

19 Enhancing Laboratory Capacity for Influenza Surge Testing Through Mathematic Models

20 Rapid Detection and Coordinated Response Save the Day

21 Improving Rapid Influenza Testing with an Educational Website

laboratory systems and standards

22 Efficient Test Sharing at WI Occupational Health Lab

23 Colorado Continues Lean Improvements with L-SIP Assessment

Workforce

24 NCPHLL Tackles Workforce Challenges

fellows

25 Recruiting for the 2013 Class of EID Laboratory Fellows

Partner Profile

26 15 Minutes with Daniel Jernigan

What’s new?

27 Discovering What’s Behind the Scenes in Newborn Screening: New APHL book covers 50 years of innovation and dedication

member spotlight

28 Almost Heaven: West Virginia PHL Celebrates 100th Year

30 Mandarins, Mountains and Microbiology in Placer County, CA

digital extra

LAB

MATTERS analysis|answers|action

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: 9 HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS 18 INFLUENZA TES TING: ESTIMATING THE COST 27 WHAT’S BEHIND THE SCENES IN NEWBORN SCREENING

ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORIES

fea Ture ar TICle: 12
The microbes Cometh:
How Will We respond?

Gearing up for a possible outbreak of an emerging infectious disease has become almost business as usual for public health laboratories and their partners. Yet declining public health funding raises questions about the nation’s actual response capacity, especially were multiple crises to arise at once.

APHL LAB MATTERS STAFF Caprice Retterer, Acting Editor Emily Mumford, Associate Editor Steven Oatmeyer, Art Director Jody DeVoll, Advisor

APHL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Charles Brokopp, President
David Butcher, President-Elect
Victor Waddell, Past President
Judith Lovchik, Secretary –Treasurer
Christine Bean, Member-at-Large
Ewa King, Member-at-Large
Chris Whelen, Member-at-Large
Dan Rice, Associate Institutional
Member Representative
Mimi Lachica, Local Institutional
Member Representative
Tammy Theisen, Local Institutional
Member Representative
Scott J. Becker, Ex-Officio

The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) is a national, nonprofit dedicated to working with members to strengthen laboratories with a public health mandate. By promoting effective programs and public policy, APHL strives to provide public health laboratories with the resources and infrastructure needed to protect the health of US residents and to prevent and control disease globally.

8515 Georgia Avenue, Suite 700 Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: 240.485.2745 Fax: 240.485.2700 E-mail: info@aphl.org Web: www.aphl.org

analysis | answers | action

enjoy Lab Matters magazine in a format that’s as mobile as you are! Download the Lab Matters mobile app from your app store (i Tunes, Google Play, Amazon App Store), or just scan this QR Code with your smartphone/ tablet to be directed to your app store. No smartphone? Subscribe to the computer/digital version by emailing subscribelm@digital.com. Contact caprice.retterer@aphl.org to learn more.

This publication was supported by Cooperative Agreement U60HM000803 and U2GPS001799 from CDC and/or Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and U22MC24078 from HRSA. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of HRSA, CDC and/or Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. 95% of the total cost of projects/programs were paid for with federal funds. 5% of the total cost of projects/programs were paid for with non-federal funds.