Bio-Terrorism preparedness and response Module 3 case MHE 507 - Essay Example

Laboratory Response Network Introduction Bioterrorism has been a major concern for policy makers in the United s since the 1990s. This was due to the fact that the nation’s public health infrastructure was inadequate in identifying and responding to biological terrorist threats. The Laboratory Response Network was created in 1999 with the purpose of identifying and mitigating bioterrorist threats. The LRN has established a unique framework because it allows various institutions to collaborate in an efficient and effective manner.

In addition, adequate funding and training has been implemented at the facilities. However the operation is plagued by the lack of qualified and motivated staff members. This paper will seek to study and analyze the LRN. Purpose and ScopeThe Laboratory Response Network was created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a means of responding to biological terrorism. The CDC established the organization with its partners, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Association of Public Health Laboratories (McGovern, 311).

The overall aim was to create an efficient mechanism that would upgrade the American public health infrastructure to respond to bioterrorism. The LRN uses a coordinated effort by government, military, health, and private laboratories to fight against possible bioterrorist threats. It helps to enhance the ability of the country to respond to biological and chemical terrorism. OrganizationThe Laboratory Response Network operates using a multi-tier organizational structure. Each level helps to create a multilayered security mechanism against potential bioterrorist acts.

Sentinel laboratories are the first line of defense since they are concerned with identifying and assessing bioterrorism threat agents. They have the responsibility of treating samples in a safe manner (Roffey & Tegnell, 450). Reference laboratories typically have advanced equipment that is used to test and monitor the presence of specific biological threat agents. Finally national laboratories are present in military and government facilities for the purpose of identifying specialized biological agents (Treadwell & Koo, 92).

Benefits and LimitationsThe LRN represents a unique effort to fight bioterrorism because it integrates state, federal, military, veterinary, and international laboratories. Adequate funding has supplemented the efforts by providing the necessary equipment, instruments, and supplies to the network of laboratories. However a major shortcoming is the lack of qualified and talented staff (Inglesby, 1735). This was because qualified scientists and researchers were unwilling to work for meager pay which was offered by the organization.

The researchers at the various laboratories have been able to use instrumental analysis and sample preparation to study the threat of potential biological agents. However some training methods were inadequate because qualified instructors were not retained. The LRN has been able to allocate its resources in an efficient and effective manner. It has developed unique calibration and proficiency testing mechanisms (Patt & Feign, 685). In addition, instrumentation has been made robust through deals with external vendors.

ConclusionLRN needs to modify and upgrade its existing resources in order to reduce shortcomings. The basic aim should be to create a talented and qualified workforce which can become proficient in the testing and identification of biological terror agents. This approach can produce favorable outcomes for the organization. In addition, training mechanisms need to be enhanced by proper procedures and protocols. Works CitedRoffey R, Tegnell A, Elg HF.  Biological warfare in a historical perspective.

  Clin Microbiol Infect 2002;8:450-4.Inglesby TV, Henderson DA, Bartlett JG, et al.  Anthrax as a biological weapon: medical and public health management. JAMA 1999;281:1735-45.Patt HA, Feign RD.  Diagnosis and management of suspected cases of bioterrorism: a pediatric perspective.  Pediatrics 2002;109(4);685-92.Treadwell TA, Koo D, Kurer K, et al.  Epidemiologic clues to bioterrorism.  Pub Health Rep 2003;18:92-8.McGovern TW, Christopher GW, Eitzen EM.  Cutaneous manifestations of biological warfare and related threat agents.

  Arch Derm 1999;135(3):311-22.