In response to the 2014–2016 West Africa Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designated 56 US hospitals as Ebola treatment centers (ETCs) with high-level isolation capabilities. We sought to determine the ongoing sustainability of ETCs and to identify how ETC capabilities have affected hospital, local, and regional coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) readiness and response.

An electronic survey included both qualitative and quantitative questions and was structured into 2 sections: operational sustainability and role in the COVID-19 response.

The survey was distributed to site representatives from the 56 originally designated ETCs, and 37 (66%) responded.

Data were coded and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Of the 37 responding ETCs, 33 (89%) reported that they were still operating, and 4 had decommissioned. ETCs that maintain high-level isolation capabilities incurred a mean of $234,367 in expenses per year. All but 1 ETC reported that existing capabilities (eg, trained staff, infrastructure) before COVID-19 positively affected their hospital, local, and regional COVID-19 readiness and response (eg, ETC trained staff, donated supplies, and shared developed protocols).

Existing high-level isolation capabilities and expertise developed following the 2014–2016 EVD epidemic were leveraged by ETCs to assist hospital-wide readiness for COVID-19 and to support responses by other local and regional hospitals However, ETCs face continued challenges in sustaining those capabilities for high-consequence infectious diseases.

Despite lessons learned from the recent Ebola epidemic, attempts to survey and determine non-health care worker, industry-specific needs to address highly infectious diseases have been minimal. The aircraft rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) industry is often overlooked in highly infectious disease training and education, even though it is critical to their field due to elevated occupational exposure risk during their operations.

A 44-question gap analysis survey was distributed to the ARFF Working Group to determine where highly infectious education and training can be improved. In total, N=245 responses were initiated and collected. Descriptive statistics were generated utilizing Qualtrics Software Version 2016.17©.

Supervisors perceived Frontline respondents to be more willing and comfortable to encounter potential highly infectious disease scenarios than the Frontline indicated. More than one-third of respondents incorrectly marked transmission routes of viral hemorrhagic fevers. There were discrepancies in self-reports on the existence of highly infectious disease orientation and skills demonstration, employee resources, and personal protective equipment policies, with a range of 7.5%-24.0% more Supervisors than Frontline respondents marking activities as conducted.

There are deficits in highly infectious disease knowledge, skills, and abilities among ARFF members that must be addressed to enhance member safety, health, and well-being. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:675-679)

To describe current Ebola treatment center (ETC) locations, their capacity to care for Ebola virus disease patients, and infection control infrastructure features.

A 19-question survey was distributed electronically in April 2015. Responses were collected via email by June 2015 and analyzed in an electronic spreadsheet.

The survey was sent to and completed by site representatives of each ETC.

The survey was sent to all 55 ETCs; 47 (85%) responded.

Of the 47 responding ETCs, there are 84 isolation beds available for adults and 91 for children; of these pediatric beds, 35 (38%) are in children’s hospitals. In total, the simultaneous capacity of the 47 reporting ETCs is 121 beds. On the basis of the current US census, there are 0.38 beds per million population. Most ETCs have negative pressure isolation rooms, anterooms, and a process for category A waste sterilization, although only 11 facilities (23%) have the capability to sterilize infectious waste on site.

Facilities developed ETCs on the basis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, but specific capabilities are not mandated at this present time. Owing to the complex and costly nature of Ebola virus disease treatment and variability in capabilities from facility to facility, in conjunction with the lack of regulations, nationwide capacity in specialized facilities is limited. Further assessments should determine whether ETCs can adapt to safely manage other highly infectious disease threats.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37(3):313–318