HS340 Unit 6 Outbreak Investigation Writeup Example

Reviewed by Elspeth Marlowe, MSN, RN Epidemiology Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Seventeen wrestlers on a composite high school team developed skin lesions over five weeks, and the HS340 Unit 6 outbreak investigation writeup follows herpes gladiatorum from one facial rash after a weekend tournament to the practice changes that ended it. Purdue Global HS 340 asks BS in Health Science students to report an investigation step by step, as a health department field summary would. The writeup covers notification, a two-tier case definition, weekly skin checks of all sixty-four wrestlers and an epidemic curve with four clusters about a week apart. Practice partners of a case fell ill at 57.9 percent against 13.3 percent for other wrestlers. Exclusion, daily skin checks and extra mat cleaning stopped transmission, and a standing rule now holds competition.

CourseHS340 Epidemiology
UnitUnit 6
Paper typeOutbreak investigation writeup
LengthAbout 1,140 words, 7 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Health Science
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HS340 Unit 6

1

Seventeen Wrestlers, One Mat Room: A Unit 6 Outbreak Investigation Writeup of Herpes Gladiatorum on a Composite High School Team

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HS340: Epidemiology

Unit 6 Outbreak Investigation Writeup

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The school, team, wrestlers and counts are composite; the camp outbreak report, the management review and the field manual cited are real.

What this part is doingNaming the curve's pattern in the lead tells the grader the writeup will use the curve as evidence, not decoration.
2

Notification

On a Monday in January, the athletic trainer at a composite high school called the county health department. Three varsity wrestlers had blistering rashes on the face and neck, and a fourth had a similar rash on his forearm. The team had a dual meet scheduled for Thursday. The trainer asked whether the meet should go ahead.

Background

The team had [64] wrestlers and [2] coaches. Practices ran six days a week in one mat room, with wrestlers paired by weight class for drilling and live wrestling. Mats were cleaned once a day, after the last practice. Two weeks before the call, eight varsity wrestlers had competed in a weekend tournament with teams from four other schools.

Herpes gladiatorum is skin infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 spread by direct skin contact during wrestling. A classic investigation at a high school wrestling camp showed how quickly it spreads through a group whose sport requires prolonged skin contact, and that lesions often appear on the head, neck and arms where opponents' skin touches (Belongia et al., 1991).

Case Definition

Confirmed case: a team member with a vesicular or ulcerative skin lesion beginning on or after the date of the tournament, with herpes simplex virus detected by laboratory testing.

Probable case: a team member with a clustered vesicular rash on the head, neck, trunk or extremities beginning in the same period, examined by the team physician or a health department nurse, without laboratory testing or with testing not yet reported.

The definition included probable cases on purpose. Early lesions can look like impetigo or ringworm, and some wrestlers had already started antiviral medicine from their own doctors before a sample was taken.

Writing the definition to include probable cases traded a little specificity for the ability to see the whole outbreak, which mattered more when the aim was to stop spread on a mat.

What this part is doingThe highlighted sentence makes the case definition a deliberate choice with a cost, which is how field epidemiologists are taught to write one.
3

Case Finding

A health department nurse and the team physician examined all [64] wrestlers at practice on Tuesday and again each Monday for four weeks. Wrestlers were asked about lesions, fever and swollen glands, and about contact with wrestlers from other teams. The trainer's injury log and the school nurse's visit log were reviewed for skin complaints since the tournament.

Descriptive Epidemiology

Seventeen wrestlers fit the case definition, giving an attack rate of 26.6 percent; [9] were confirmed by PCR testing, and [8] were probable. No coaches were affected. Lesions were on the head or face in [9] wrestlers, on the arms in [6] and on the trunk in [2]. Five reported fever, and three had eye symptoms and were referred to an ophthalmologist; none had corneal involvement.

The epidemic curve, plotted by date of lesion onset in four-day intervals across 36 days, shows four clusters. The index case, a varsity wrestler who had attended the tournament, developed a facial rash six days after it. A second cluster of [4] cases began about a week later, then a cluster of [8], then a final [4]. Each cluster followed the last by roughly the virus's usual incubation period of several days to two weeks, the pattern of transmission from one wrestler to the next, not exposure to one shared source. A point-source outbreak, such as contaminated equipment used once, would have produced a single peak within one incubation period. Here each peak followed the last, and cases in the later clusters were mostly the practice partners of cases in the earlier ones, which is how the investigation came to look at pairing records at all.

Analytic Comparison

Because practices paired wrestlers by weight class, the investigation compared wrestlers who had drilled or wrestled with a case during that case's infectious period with those who had not. Among [19] practice partners of a case, [11] became cases, 57.9 percent. Among the other [45] wrestlers, [6] became cases, 13.3 percent. The risk ratio is 4.35. The six cases without a known partner link all trained in the same afternoon group as a case and may have had contact during team drills that the pairing records did not capture.

Three wrestlers on an opposing team developed similar lesions after the Thursday dual meet, which went ahead before the extent of the outbreak was known. Their health department was notified.

Control Measures

The health department and the school agreed on five measures, drawing on published guidance for managing outbreaks in wrestling (Anderson, 2008):

1. Any wrestler with a lesion was withheld from practice and competition until lesions had crusted over and the wrestler had taken antiviral treatment for at least five days, as cleared by the team physician.

2. Skin checks by the trainer before every practice for the rest of the season.

3. Mats cleaned between practice groups as well as at the end of the day.

4. Wrestlers told not to share towels, headgear or water bottles.

5. The team withdrew from one weekend tournament while cases were still appearing.

After the measures began, one more cluster of [4] cases occurred, consistent with infections acquired before the measures took effect, and no new cases began after day 36.

Discussion

The pattern of waves, the concentration among practice partners and the lesion sites all point to spread during practice from a virus introduced at the tournament. The partner comparison is the strongest piece of evidence, but it rests on pairing records kept by coaches, and contact outside assigned pairs was common. The investigation could not test whether the index case was infected at the tournament or reactivated a past infection, since no samples were available from other teams' wrestlers at that time.

Two lessons stand out. First, the decision to wrestle the Thursday meet spread the outbreak to another school; the health department now asks schools to hold competition when two or more athletes have new vesicular rashes in a week. Second, daily skin checks found new lesions within a day of onset, earlier than wrestlers reported them, which shortened the time each new case spent on the mat.

What this part is doingTurning findings into a standing rule for the health department shows the writeup produced something beyond a description of one season.
4

Conclusion

This was a person-to-person outbreak of herpes gladiatorum among a high school wrestling team, introduced at a tournament and spread during practice. Exclusion until lesions crusted, skin checks and more frequent mat cleaning ended it within five weeks. The investigation followed the standard steps of field work: confirming the outbreak, defining cases, finding them, describing them by time, place and person, testing a hypothesis and putting control measures in place (Rasmussen & Goodman, 2019).

5

References

Anderson, B. J. (2008). Managing herpes gladiatorum outbreaks in competitive wrestling. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 7(6), 323-327. https://doi.org/10.1249/JSR.0b013e31818eebde

Belongia, E. A., Goodman, J. L., Holland, E. J., Andres, C. W., Homann, S. R., Mahanti, R. L., Mizener, M. W., Erice, A., & Osterholm, M. T. (1991). An outbreak of herpes gladiatorum at a high-school wrestling camp. New England Journal of Medicine, 325(13), 906-910. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199109263251302

Rasmussen, S. A., & Goodman, R. A. (Eds.). (2019). The CDC field epidemiology manual. Oxford University Press.

Reading the HS 340 Unit 6 instructions

Unit 6 typically asks for a writeup of an outbreak investigation, real or composite, organized by the standard steps of field epidemiology. Writeups often run four to six pages. Instructors look for a clear case definition, case finding that could reasonably find most cases, an epidemic curve described and interpreted, attack rates or another comparison that tests a hypothesis, and control measures tied to the findings. Many sections reward a discussion of limits and lessons for future outbreaks. Describe the curve's shape in words if you cannot include the figure. Cite a field epidemiology manual for the steps and at least one published investigation of the same disease or setting to support your interpretation.

How this HS340 Unit 6 example is built

The writeup opens with the trainer's call and the question about Thursday's meet, then gives background on the team, its practices and the tournament, with a published camp outbreak as context. A two-tier case definition follows, and the highlighted sentence explains why probable cases were included. Case finding describes weekly examinations and log reviews. Descriptive results give the attack rate, confirmation by PCR, lesion sites and the curve's four clusters, read as person-to-person spread. An analytic comparison of practice partners and other wrestlers gives a risk ratio, and spread to an opposing team is reported. Five control measures follow from published guidance. The discussion names limits and two lessons, and a conclusion maps the work to the field steps.

Where the points sit in the HS340 Unit 6 rubric

Outbreak writeups are commonly scored on the case definition, case finding, descriptive epidemiology, analytic testing, control measures and the discussion. Descriptive epidemiology and the analytic comparison usually weigh most, since the curve and the attack rates are what turn a story into evidence. Case definition credit rewards clear clinical and laboratory criteria and a time window. Case finding earns points when it reaches the whole group at risk. Control measures should follow from what the investigation found. The discussion is rewarded for naming limits honestly and drawing lessons that change practice. Using the standard field steps as headings makes the writeup easy to grade and shows command of the method.

Common HS340 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most common problem is an epidemic curve described as a picture without any reading of what its shape means. Another is a case definition with no time window, so earlier unrelated illnesses get counted. Some writeups list control measures that the findings do not support. Others give an overall attack rate but never compare groups, which leaves the source untested. Skipping limits makes the conclusion look more certain than it is. If your outbreak is different, perhaps norovirus at a care home or a foodborne cluster, describe it to us and the writeup can be organized step by step with a curve reading and a comparison that tests the source.

Get an HS340 Unit 6 example written to your instructions

Share the scenario, line list or onset dates from the HS340 Unit 6 assignment, plus the directions and rubric. Back comes a free first custom sample in 24-48 hours, with a case definition fitted to the agent, a curve binned to its incubation, and attack rates calculated for whatever groups the data can support. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

More HS340 papers and BS in Health Science samples

HS340 Unit 6 questions, answered

How does the writeup tell a propagated outbreak from a point-source one?

By the curve's shape and spacing. A single shared exposure produces one peak whose width reflects the range of incubation times. Spread from person to person produces successive peaks roughly one incubation period apart, often growing before control measures take hold. The chickenpox curve shows four clusters spaced about two weeks apart, which is why the writeup looks for chains of contact.

Where can I find a free HS340 Unit 6 sample paper?

This page carries the complete Unit 6 outbreak investigation writeup, on herpes gladiatorum spreading through a composite high school wrestling team.

What is herpes gladiatorum?

Skin infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 spread by direct skin contact during wrestling and other contact sports, often on the head, neck and arms.

Why compare practice partners with other wrestlers?

Because practice pairs had the most skin contact. A much higher attack rate among partners of cases supports spread during practice rather than from a shared object or place.

Should a team keep competing during a skin infection outbreak?

The example shows the risk: a meet held before the outbreak's size was known spread it to another school, and the health department now asks schools to hold competition in that situation.