| Course | PHLT 8072 Communicable Disease Epidemiology |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Surveillance memo |
| Length | About 820 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 8072 Week 5
Memorandum
To: County health officer
From: Communicable disease epidemiologist
Date: Wednesday, September 16
Re: Response to a confirmed case of invasive meningococcal disease at a composite university and the decision a second case would force
Summary
On Sunday evening a hospital laboratory isolated Neisseria meningitidis from the blood of an 18-year-old first-year student living in a residence hall at a composite university in the county. The case was reported Monday morning, verified within two hours and close contacts were identified and offered antibiotic prophylaxis by Tuesday afternoon. Serogroup B was confirmed on Wednesday. This memo traces each step against the clock, explains why timeliness organizes the response and sets out what would change if a second case of the same serogroup occurred.
Why Timeliness Organizes the Response
Invasive meningococcal disease progresses quickly, and close contacts face a sharply raised risk in the days after the index case. Prophylaxis is meant to eliminate carriage among people who shared respiratory secretions with the patient, which is why guidance stresses giving it as soon as possible after the case is identified (Heymann, 2022). Every hour between the laboratory result and a contact's first dose is time in which a carrier may transmit. Timeliness is also a recognized attribute of surveillance systems, and reporting intervals for notifiable diseases vary widely across conditions and jurisdictions (Jajosky & Groseclose, 2004). For this disease, the interval is the outcome that matters.
The Timeline
The longest gap was the first. The laboratory identified the organism Sunday evening but called Monday morning, a delay of more than ten hours. The state's rules require immediate reporting of suspected meningococcal disease by phone, and the laboratory has agreed to review its after-hours procedure.
Table 1
Steps in the Response, With Elapsed Time From the Laboratory Result
| Step | Time | Elapsed | Responsible | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blood culture positive for gram-negative diplococci; Neisseria meningitidis identified | Sun., 8:40 p.m. | 0 h | Hospital laboratory | |
| Laboratory calls health department on-call line | Mon., 7:15 a.m. | 10.5 h | Hospital laboratory | |
| Case verified: clinical record reviewed, isolate sent to state laboratory | Mon., 9:20 a.m. | 12.5 h | County epidemiologist | |
| University health service and housing office notified | Mon., 10:00 a.m. | 13.5 h | County epidemiologist | |
| Close contacts identified (23 people) | Mon., 6:30 p.m. | 22 h | County staff and university health service | |
| Prophylaxis offered; 21 of 23 received first dose | Tue., 2:00 p.m. | 41 h | University health service | |
| Serogroup B confirmed | Wed., 11:00 a.m. | 62 h | State laboratory | |
Note. Times are for this composite case. Two contacts who had left campus were reached by phone and given prescriptions through their own providers on Tuesday evening.
Who Counted as a Close Contact
Contacts were defined as people with prolonged close exposure or direct contact with the student's oral secretions during the seven days before illness began: the roommate and four suitemates, a dating partner, nine students who shared drinks at a gathering two nights before onset, and eight members of a study group who met for several hours in a small room. Classmates in large lectures and residents of other floors were not included, consistent with guidance that casual contact does not justify prophylaxis (Heymann, 2022). The university sent a factual message to all residents explaining who had been contacted and why others had not, which reduced requests for unnecessary antibiotics.
Context
Incidence of meningococcal disease in the United States has declined substantially over the past two decades, and the share of cases caused by serogroups covered by routine adolescent vaccines has fallen with it (Cohn et al., 2010). The university requires the quadrivalent vaccine against serogroups A, C, W and Y for students in residence halls, which does not protect against serogroup B. Vaccination against serogroup B for healthy adolescents and young adults is decided individually with a clinician rather than recommended for all (Mbaeyi et al., 2020).
What a Second Case Would Change
A single case calls for prophylaxis of close contacts and nothing more. A second case of serogroup B at the same university within a short period would raise the question of an organization-based outbreak. In that situation, national recommendations support offering serogroup B vaccine to people at increased risk because of the outbreak, which could mean all first-year residence hall students (Mbaeyi et al., 2020). Planning for that decision should begin now: the university health service has estimated vaccine needs, identified clinic space and drafted messages, so that if a second case is reported the campaign can start within days rather than weeks.
Recommendations
Continue daily contact with the university health service for 14 days. Ask the hospital laboratory to report future suspected cases by phone at any hour. Keep the serogroup B vaccination plan ready for use, and review this response with the university after the monitoring period ends. The review should examine the overnight reporting gap in particular, since the same laboratory serves two other colleges in the county and a delay of ten hours would matter as much there as it did here.
References
Cohn, A. C., MacNeil, J. R., Harrison, L. H., Hatcher, C., Theodore, J., Schmidt, M., Pondo, T., Arnold, K. E., Baumbach, J., Bennett, N., Craig, A. S., Farley, M., Gershman, K., Petit, S., Lynfield, R., Reingold, A., Schaffner, W., Shutt, K. A., Zell, E. R., . . . Messonnier, N. E. (2010). Changes in Neisseria meningitidis disease epidemiology in the United States, 1998-2007: Implications for prevention of meningococcal disease. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 50(2), 184-191. https://doi.org/10.1086/649209
Heymann, D. L. (Ed.). (2022). Control of communicable diseases manual (21st ed.). American Public Health Association.
Jajosky, R. A., & Groseclose, S. L. (2004). Evaluation of reporting timeliness of public health surveillance systems for infectious diseases. BMC Public Health, 4, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-4-29
Mbaeyi, S. A., Bozio, C. H., Duffy, J., Rubin, L. G., Hariri, S., Stephens, D. S., & MacNeil, J. R. (2020). Meningococcal vaccination: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2020. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 69(9), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6909a1
What the PHLT 8072 Week 5 instructions ask for
The fifth week usually asks for a memo describing how a surveillance system responds to a report of a specific notifiable disease. Faculty expect the steps from report to action laid out in order, with the responsible party at each step and an explanation of why speed or other surveillance attributes matter for that disease. Definitions used in the response, such as who counts as a close contact, should be stated and justified. The memo should consider how the response would change if the situation escalated. A table or timeline is common, and recommendations should follow from any weaknesses found. Memos typically run three to four pages in a standard memo format, addressed to a decision maker, with current guidance and surveillance literature cited.
How the PHLT 8072 Week 5 example is put together
The memo opens with a summary that already reports the timeline. A section explains why timeliness organizes the response, citing the manual and a study of reporting timeliness. Table 1 lists seven steps with clock times, elapsed hours and the responsible party, and the text names the ten-hour overnight gap before the laboratory's call and the agreed fix. A section defines close contacts, from the roommate and suitemates to students who shared drinks and a study group, and explains why lecture classmates were excluded and how the university's message reduced unnecessary requests. A context section notes declining national incidence and the limits of the quadrivalent vaccine. A section explains how a second serogroup B case would raise the question of an outbreak and vaccination, and recommendations close the memo.
Where the marks sit in the PHLT 8072 Week 5 rubric
Graders assess a surveillance memo on accuracy, organization and decision usefulness. The sequence of steps must be realistic and complete, and the sample's table makes each interval visible. Organizing the memo around timeliness, with a reason specific to meningococcal disease, shows understanding of why surveillance attributes matter. Accuracy is checked in the contact definition and in statements about vaccine recommendations, which the sample attributes to current guidance. Identifying a weakness in the system and proposing a fix earns credit as evaluation rather than description. Planning for escalation demonstrates foresight. A clear memo format, a summary a busy reader can act on and correct APA references round out the criteria.
Common PHLT 8072 Week 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Surveillance memos often describe the system in general terms, listing reporting requirements and agencies without following a case through them. Pick one report and trace it step by step, with times. Another common weakness is failing to say why a particular attribute matters for the disease in question; for meningococcal disease, timeliness drives everything because contacts need prophylaxis quickly. Students also define contacts too broadly, which wastes antibiotics and causes alarm, or too narrowly, which misses people at real risk. Justify the definition. Avoid giving drug names or doses unless the prompt asks; refer to guidance instead. Finally, look for the longest delay and propose a fix. A free custom memo can be built around the disease and system your prompt names.
Get a PHLT 8072 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Describe the report or case your section is working from, and include the Week 5 prompt and rubric. The memo traces the chain of action that single report triggers, gives every step an owner, draws the contact boundary for the agent involved and states what would reopen the response. Free the first time; 24-48 hours.
More PHLT 8072 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8072 Week 1: Communicable Disease Scope Post
- PHLT 8072 Week 2: Q Fever Chain of Infection Brief
- PHLT 8072 Week 3: Chikungunya Natural History Profile
- PHLT 8072 Week 4: Hepatitis C Disease Profile
- PHLT 8072 Week 6: Hepatitis C Chain Peer Critique
- PHLT 8072 Week 7: Measles Outbreak Write-Up
- PHLT 8072 Week 8: Measles Program Appraisal
- PHLT 8072 Week 9: Q Fever Control Comparison
- PHLT 8072 Week 10: Melioidosis Emerging Threat Brief
- PHLT 8072 Week 11: Syringe Services Control Argument
- PHLT 8068 Week 5: Data Cleaning Memo
- PHLT 8066 Week 5: Terminology Sweep Paper
- PHLT 8064 Week 5: Registry Sampling Plan
- PHLT 8062 Week 5: Matrix Evidence Table
PHLT 8072 Week 5 questions, answered
Does the memo recommend antibiotics for contacts?
It refers close contacts for prophylaxis decisions and stops there. Which drug, dose or schedule applies is a clinical judgment made under current guidance by clinicians and the health department, and the memo reproduces none of it. Its task is to show who gets referred and why. A custom memo on a different agent handles post-exposure measures the same way, naming them without prescribing them.
Is the university in the memo a real campus?
The campus, its residence hall, the patient and the laboratory are all invented, and no real event is described. A residence hall was chosen because shared living makes the boundary between close and casual contact easy to argue. Real meningococcal investigations appear in the published literature; if your prompt assigns one, the custom memo follows that account and cites every detail from it.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8072 Week 5 sample paper?
This page reproduces the full Week 5 surveillance memo on a composite case of invasive meningococcal disease, with an hour-by-hour response table, the close contact definition and what a second case would change. The references are real.
Why does timeliness matter so much for meningococcal disease?
Close contacts face a sharply raised risk in the days after the index case, and prophylaxis aims to eliminate carriage before it spreads further. Every hour between the laboratory result and a contact's first dose is time a carrier may transmit.
Who counts as a close contact of a meningococcal case?
People with prolonged close exposure or direct contact with the patient's oral secretions in the week before illness, such as roommates, partners and people who shared drinks. Classmates in large lectures generally do not qualify, and the sample explains why.