TABLE 1
Outline of Scenario Injects, Questions Posed, and Supporting Resources Provided
Inject # Focus of Video Inject and Video Duration (min:s)
Question Posed
Supporting Resources Provided
1
Introduction/overview (05:52)
Is this an outbreak? Should it be investigated?
Live video link
2
Information on symptoms (1:30)
Which pathogen do you suspect?
Handout on characteristics of common bacterial foodborne pathogens
3
Interpreting laboratory results (static image of results displayed)
Which pathogen is present?
Sample laboratory results
4
Case definition (0:57)
Based on the case definition, how many cases of illness are there?
List of the case definition
5
Epidemic curves (0:30)
Does this exposure seem like a single occurrence or an ongoing issue?
Epidemic curve
6
Update on scale of outbreak and decision to go ahead with an epidemiological study. List of meals at event provided.
Based on what we know so far (i.e., the pathogen and the epidemic curve), which meal should we focus on? Which food or foods would you be most suspicious of? Which process in the food-preparation environment is deficient? Answers to the quiz questions provided with brief explanations.
Event menu
7
Interpreting an attack rate table (1:48)
Attack rate table
8
Environmental inspection (1:42)
Summary of findings from the environmental inspection report Live video link and open chat with attendees
9
Debrief (live discussion session)
Note. “Injects” of information are inserts of information relevant to the scenario that mimic the evolution of a real-life epidemiological outbreak investigation.
Recommendations Our advice to others who would like to try a similar exercise are: • The CDC outbreak investigation studies are a good framework to begin with for typical outbreak investigation questions, activities, and discussion points. • Consider partnering with universities and local public health agencies to identify a local example that some of the CDC ques- tions could be applied to. • Consider giving attendees advance notice about the exercise and make it clear that a degree of participation will be expected. • Consider whether to split up injects of information or deliver more information in dedicated session blocks. • Ask specific questions about the exercise in the conference evaluation. Conclusion Including questions about an outbreak scenario for attendees to consider and answer in a mul- tiple-choice-question format as part of a com- petition running throughout the program was an innovative aspect of NZIEH’s first-ever vir-
knowledge had to be practically applied in real time, might have altered attendee expec- tations and overall takeaway learnings from this experience. Competitions to earn points toward prizes or recognition are common features of tra- ditional and virtual conferences, but these competitions do not usually have educational aims. It is worth considering linking pro- fessional development to question results, which would require some sophisticated implementation of identity verification so as not to undermine the integrity of professional development accreditation. While data available from our online plat- form gave us useful insight into the level of engagement achieved, there are still many unknowns. There are also some limitations on our estimates of participation. While we controlled for multiple logins during a session, multiple attendees might have accessed the activity simultaneously from a single device. Overall, however, despite one or two comments that the experience was disjointed, participation and engagement was high.
tual conference. The outbreak scenario was a positive feature that increased attendee engage- ment. An alternative would have been to use these questions as a separate activity, at a higher level. Such an approach could be considered as a component of professional development and allow attendees to earn continuing education credit toward a professional credential. A theme of the overall conference feedback was that attendees missed the opportunity to network with their colleagues, which is a challenge for any online event, no matter the subject matter. We will consider explor- ing ways to allow for more networking and interactions among attendees for any future online conferences. Acknowledgement: The authors thank Con- ference & Events for providing data for our analysis. Corresponding Author: Tanya J. Morrison, National President, New Zealand Institute of Environmental Health, New Zealand. Email: tanya@nzieh.org.nz.
References on page 32
23
June 2023 • 4:73&1 4+ 3;.7432*39&1 *&19-
Powered by FlippingBook