ISSOUF SANOGO/AFP/Getty Images
A nurse leaves an isolation room after checking a man on August 14, 2014 at the district hospital of Biankouma, during a simulation operation organized by the Ivory Coast Health Ministry to train medical staff to treat potential patients with Ebola.
As news coverage of Ebola has intensified, you've no doubt seen or heard terms and phrases that you don't understand. Not understanding makes this situation even more disconcerting.
On Twitter, people have been sharing information about Ebola with the hashtag #FactsNotFear. In that vein, I offer you this glossary of Ebola-related terms:
This is the acronym for Personal Protective Equipment. It refers to the Hazmat-like suits you've been seeing in the news.
To prevent the spread of Ebola in U.S. hospitals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that people entering a patient’s room wear the following protective equipment: gloves, a fluid-resistant or impermeable gown, eye protection – either goggles or a face shield - and a face mask.
The type of protective equipment needed varies based on the level of precautions required, the CDC says. More intensive situations might also require double gloving, disposable shoe covers and leg coverings.
LEON NEAL/AFP/Getty Images
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center was scheduled to run an Ebola preparedness drill Thursday, and Ronald Reagan-UCLA Medical Center was slated to run a drill Friday.
News that a second health care worker in Dallas tested positive for Ebola probably has you wondering: What happens if the disease shows up here?
In fact, officials with the California Department of Public Health say it would not be unexpected to find a positive case here.
That probably leads you to another question: Is California's health system ready?
Beefing up protocols
Rest assured, some hospitals in the LA area are now actively preparing for the possibility that Ebola could show up here.
For example, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the hospital is focusing on early detection of the disease. "I think early detection is one of the keys in really taking appropriate action and to protect our caregivers as well as others," Dr. Rekha Murthy, director of epidemiology at Cedars, told me.
For decades, vaccinations were a given. And why wouldn't they be? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers vaccines one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century.
That was the case when Dr. Lisa Stern trained to be a pediatrician two decades ago. At that time, she says, there was no need to learn how to talk to parents about the benefits of vaccination.
"We just told them what they were going to get, … and that was the end of the conversation," she says.
But these days, it's not always that easy.
Tactics for the talk
When families come see her at Tenth Street Pediatric Medical Group in Santa Monica, Stern says she leaves a lot of time at checkups to talk about vaccines.
She says just a handful of the families she sees at are completely opposed to vaccinating their kids, while she estimates that about 20 percent have other concerns, including the number of shots and their ingredients.
In 1974, a type of intrauterine device – the Dalkon Shield – was pulled off the market, amid reports that it caused serious pelvic infections, sterility, and even death. The Copper-7, another IUD that came under fire, was pulled in 1986.
But what's come on the market in recent years is not your mother's IUD: The new brands are completely different, and, experts say, extremely effective and safe.
In fact, IUD's have been endorsed as one of the best forms of birth control for teens and young women by two key groups: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Planned Parenthood also supports that recommendation.
Meet the new IUD's
Today's devices look like tiny, plastic toothpicks. They're T-shaped, and have strings on the bottom.
Kai Chan Vong/Flickr (Creative Commons-licensed)
Pink breast cancer ribbons
Women: check out Monday's story by KPCC health reporter Elizabeth Aguilera on double mastectomies. It is a thought-provoking report about the tough decisions women face when they are diagnosed with cancer in one of their breasts.
Elizabeth was following up on a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association of 190,000 breast cancer cases in California. The researchers found a big increase between 1998 and 2011 in the percentage of women with early-stage cancer in one breast who were choosing double mastectomies.
The study also found that those women were not improving their chances of surviving their original cancer. Removing both breasts does not guarantee that the original cancer won't return. The researchers found that survival rates were essentially the same for women who had a lumpectomy followed by radiation.