Vaccines for Measles, Case Study Example

The risk of developing measles in children who have not been vaccinated appears to be very high and requires an effective understanding of the different elements that contribute to the risk of disease for the population in question, along with the decisions made by parents not to vaccinate their children. Most importantly, it is known that “The administration of the first dose of measles-containing vaccine at nine months of age is recommended in countries with ongoing transmission and with high risk of measles mortality among infants, in order to ensure adequate protection” (Demicheli, Rivetti, Debalini, & Pietrantonj, 2012, p. 3). Under these conditions, the use of a vaccine known as M-M-R is highly recommended to prevent three diseases: measles, mumps, and rubella, all of which may have consequences for young patients if they do not receive the combination vaccine at the recommendation age (Demicheli et.al, 2012).

If parents refuse to vaccinate their children, these children may be unable to develop the natural immunity to fight off the disease and will face a higher risk, particularly during the contagious period (Demicheli et.al, 2012). Therefore, it is important for parents to consider this choice with extreme caution in order to ensure that they recognize all sides of the argument and how it will determine whether or not a child is vaccinated. This is an important need for patients because it has a lasting impact on their health, even if it does not appear so in the short term.

There are many challenges associated with infectious diseases such as the measles, particularly since the disease appears to be less common than ever before. In spite of the limited scope of the disease, it remains a threat in some communities and represents a need to develop new strategies within the public health arena to ensure that the disease does not spread erratically within a given community and that it remains as isolated as possible. This process is instrumental in supporting a new set of directions in public health so that local health officials develop a coordinated response to the disease and the risk of potential outbreak. Therefore, the ER attending physician in this case must establish a protocol that will notify the family members of the other students who are also home-schooled in order to prevent lasting complications or other challenges that could impact other student’s health and to avert a crisis as best as possible. In addition, the other siblings must also be protected as best as possible in order to avoid any possible risk of infection.

The spread of the disease must also be taken into consideration within the hospital environment and occupational health team in order to prevent this circumstance from taking place. Most importantly, a coordinated response effort must be in place that will aim to prevent the child from exposure to other persons, particularly those who have not been vaccinated, so that they will not contract the disease. With this case scenario, it is necessary to develop a strategy that will require a sufficient public health response and that will also educate the public regarding the possible risks associated with not receiving the vaccine as recommended at the public health level. In the short-term, perhaps over a 72-hour period there are considerable man-hours required to ensure that as many children as possible who have been exposed to the infected child have received sufficient notice of the outbreak and what steps are required for these children to take so that they are able to prevent the spread of the disease within their own households and families. Therefore, the public health strategy that is undertaken must be timely, appropriate, and largely effective in minimizing the risk of an outbreak and in preventing any further cases of the measles in this community.

References

Demicheli, V., Rivetti, A., Debalini, M. G., & Di Pietrantonj, C. (2013). Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Evidence?Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal, 8(6), 2076-2238.