| Course | PU650 Infectious Disease Epidemiology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Outbreak investigation report |
| Length | About 1,160 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PU650 Unit 10
Eighty-Three Cases, One Splash Pad, Six Weeks: A Unit 10 Outbreak Investigation Report to a Composite County Board of Health, Told in the Order the Investigation Happened
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
PU650: Infectious Disease Epidemiology
Unit 10 Outbreak Investigation Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Dunmore County, its board, its cases and its records are composite; the methods, the water treatment standards and the research cited are real.
Summary
Between June 27 and August 9, 83 people in Dunmore County became ill with cryptosporidiosis: 73 primary and 10 secondary cases, 31 confirmed by laboratory testing, with a median age of six. Illness was strongly associated with the Harlan Park splash pad. Among children at a county day camp, the risk of illness was 4.8 times higher for children who went on a park outing than for those who did not, with a gradient by water swallowed. In a community case-control study, cases had 24.6 times the odds of controls of having visited the pad. Every typed specimen was Cryptosporidium hominis. The pad's chlorine levels were in the required range, but it had no secondary disinfection and its filter maintenance had slipped. The pad was closed on July 16, hyperchlorinated and fitted with ultraviolet treatment before reopening on August 14. The report recommends secondary disinfection for every interactive water feature in the county.
Background
Dunmore County, population about 210,000, typically records 12 to 20 cryptosporidiosis reports a year. Fourteen reports arrived between July 1 and July 12. Nationally, treated recreational water venues such as pools and water playgrounds account for more cryptosporidiosis outbreak cases than any other exposure, and reported outbreaks rose by about 13 percent a year from 2009 to 2017 (Gharpure et al., 2019).
Methods
Case finding drew on laboratory reports, a health alert to clinicians on July 9, the day camp roster and interviews with the households of cases. The working case definition, adopted July 10, required three or more days of diarrhea with onset from June 25 and residence in or a visit to the county; confirmed cases had Cryptosporidium detected by microscopy, fluorescent antibody or molecular testing, and probable cases had an antigen-only result or an epidemiologic link. Once the pad was suspected, a narrower definition for the case-control study required onset from June 26 to July 20. Secondary cases were household members with onset more than three days after a primary case and no exposure at the pad. The camp cohort was surveyed by phone. For the case-control study, 40 community cases were matched by age group to 80 controls drawn from the same clinics' patient lists. Environmental assessment covered the pad's operating records, a site inspection and water and filter sampling. Methods lists the definition's revision openly, because a definition that narrowed after the source was suspected is a choice the board should see rather than discover.
Results: Descriptive
Onsets ran from June 27 to August 9, with the main body between July 6 and July 18 and a tail of secondary cases into August. Of 83 cases, 61 were children under 13. Fifty-two were children at the day camp; 21 were community cases with no camp link; 10 were secondary. Seven people were hospitalized, all for dehydration, and none died. The epidemic curve's width, eighteen days of primary onsets against an incubation range about eight days wide, indicated a continuing source rather than a single exposure.
Results: Analytic
Camp cohort: 49 of 164 children on the park outing became ill, 29.9 percent, against 3 of 48 who stayed behind, 6.2 percent, a risk ratio of 4.8, whose 95 percent interval ran from 1.6 to 14.7. Among outing children, the attack rate was higher again for children who played in the spray, 34.1 percent, and highest, 46.9 percent, for the subset who swallowed water. Case-control study: 34 of 40 cases and 15 of 80 controls had visited the pad in the two weeks before onset or the matched reference date, an odds ratio of 24.6 (95 percent confidence interval 8.7 to 69.0). Among visitors, getting water in the mouth carried an odds ratio of 4.8, with an interval of 1.3 to 17.7. No other exposure, including drinking water, the county fair or child care, was associated with illness.
Environmental and Laboratory Findings
The pad recirculates about 9,000 gallons through a sand filter and chlorine feeder. Daily free chlorine logs showed levels within the required range on every day inspected. There was no ultraviolet or ozone treatment. Filter backwashing, scheduled every three days, occurred only twice between June 28 and July 15. No fecal incident was logged by staff, although the pad had no posted procedure for reporting one. Water samples taken after closure did not detect oocysts, which is common after the source event has passed. Fourteen specimens were typed, and all were C. hominis, the species that spreads among people rather than from animals. Oocysts need a chlorine concentration times contact time of at least 10,400 milligram-minutes per liter for a thousand-fold reduction in viability, so chlorine within the required range would not have inactivated them quickly enough to protect children in the spray (Shields et al., 2008).
Discussion
The evidence points to the Harlan Park splash pad as the source: a strong association in two independent study designs, a gradient by water swallowed, a human-specific species and a venue without a second barrier against a chlorine-tolerant parasite. The most likely sequence is a diarrheal contamination event in late June that went unreported, followed by weeks of recirculation through a filter that was not being backwashed on schedule. Limitations include underascertainment, since many people with diarrhea are never tested; recall of swallowing water, which ill children's parents may report more readily; and controls drawn from clinic lists, which may differ from the general population in how often they visit parks.
Control Measures Taken
1. Pad closed July 16.
2. Hyperchlorination at 20 parts per million for 12.75 hours, followed by filter backwash and media replacement.
3. Communication package released July 18, with updates on July 21, July 28 and August 11.
4. Exclusion guidance to child care centers and the day camp.
5. Ultraviolet secondary disinfection installed before reopening on August 14.
Recommendations, Each With an Owner
1. County parks department: install secondary disinfection on the county's two other interactive water features before next season, as the national model aquatic health code recommends for these venues (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2018).
2. Parks department: written fecal incident procedures and staff training at every aquatic venue, with incidents logged and reported to the health department.
3. Parks department: filter backwash logged and checked weekly by a supervisor.
4. Health department: an annual pre-season letter to all pool and splash pad operators on Cryptosporidium response.
5. Health department: a sign at every venue asking people with diarrhea to stay out of the water, in English and Spanish.
6. Board of Health: consider an ordinance requiring secondary disinfection at all new interactive water features.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). The model aquatic health code (3rd ed.). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Gharpure, R., Perez, A., Miller, A. D., Wikswo, M. E., Silver, R., & Hlavsa, M. C. (2019). Cryptosporidiosis outbreaks: United States, 2009-2017. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(25), 568-572. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6825a3
Shields, J. M., Hill, V. R., Arrowood, M. J., & Beach, M. J. (2008). Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum under chlorinated recreational water conditions. Journal of Water and Health, 6(4), 513-520. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2008.068
PU650 Unit 10 instructions, in plain terms
The final unit usually asks for a complete outbreak investigation report addressed to a decision-making body. Begin with a one-page summary for readers who will go no further. Then follow a standard structure: background, methods, descriptive and analytic results, environmental and laboratory findings, discussion with limitations, control measures taken and recommendations. Describe case finding and the case definition, including any revisions. Report analytic results with confidence intervals. Explain how environmental and laboratory evidence corroborates the epidemiology. Address limitations honestly. Give each recommendation an owner. Revise earlier unit work rather than pasting it, so figures reflect final counts. Many prompts expect tables or figures for the definition, curve and key results.
How the PU 650 Unit 10 example is put together
The report opens with a one-paragraph summary carrying the final count, the two key measures of association, the typing result, the water treatment findings and the main recommendation. Background places the outbreak in national context. Methods explain case finding, the definition and its later narrowing, with a highlighted line on why the revision is disclosed. Descriptive results cover onsets, ages and hospitalizations. Analytic results report the camp cohort and the community case-control study with intervals. Environmental and laboratory findings describe the pad's system, records, samples and typing. The discussion proposes the likely sequence and three limitations. Five control measures and six recommendations, each assigned to an agency, close the report.
Reading the PU650 Unit 10 grading rubric
Final reports in PU 650 are generally graded on structure, accuracy and judgment. Points go to a complete standard structure with a usable summary. Credit rewards clear methods, including case definitions and study designs, and results reported with appropriate measures and intervals. Instructors look for environmental and laboratory evidence integrated with the epidemiology rather than listed separately. A discussion that weighs limitations honestly earns substantial marks. Recommendations score best when specific, feasible and assigned to owners. Consistency of final figures across sections matters, so reconcile interim counts. Professional tone, tables or figures and APA citations complete the rubric. Graders also notice whether the report could actually be handed to the board as written, so a summary that stands alone and recommendations a director could act on the next morning tend to lift an otherwise solid submission.
PU650 Unit 10 help from the desk
Reports often paste earlier assignments unchanged, leaving interim counts and mismatched figures. Update every number to the final count. Another issue is a summary that reads like an introduction; it should give the findings and the main recommendation. Do not report measures of association without intervals. Avoid presenting environmental findings as proof when they corroborate. Name limitations specific to your methods, such as recall of exposures. Recommendations without owners are rarely acted on. Keep the board as your audience, and write for members who are not epidemiologists. Once your earlier units are written, we can turn them into one reconciled report addressed to the body your prompt names, with final counts throughout.
Get a PU650 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Every earlier unit feeds this report: send the definition, curve, calculations and hypothesis your PU650 work produced, unrevised if need be, along with the last unit's instructions, rubric and any report template. Within 24-48 hours a free first custom sample assembles them into one report in investigation order, figures reconciled and every recommendation owned. 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 PU650 papers and MPH samples
- PU650 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- PU650 Unit 2: Transmission Analysis
- PU650 Unit 3: Case Definition Exercise
- PU650 Unit 4: Epidemic Curve Construction
- PU650 Unit 5: Attack Rate Calculation
- PU650 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- PU650 Unit 7: Hypothesis Generation Paper
- PU650 Unit 8: Vaccination and Immunity Analysis
- PU650 Unit 9: Outbreak Communication
- PU635 Unit 10: Safety Program Document
- PU615 Unit 10: Complete Grant Proposal
- PU501 Unit 10: Childhood Asthma Housing Issue Paper
- PU605 Unit 10: Program Plan Document
PU650 Unit 10 questions, answered
Can the PU650 Unit 10 report reuse text from earlier units?
It can reuse the work, revised, but pasted sections tend to show. Tense shifts, figures from interim counts and references to 'this assignment' give them away. The example rewrites each earlier piece in the report's voice, updates interim numbers to final ones, and notes where a definition or estimate changed as the investigation went on.
Does the report need an analytic study, or is description enough?
Final reports here usually expect at least one analytic comparison, since description alone cannot separate the source from a popular activity. The example includes two, a cohort within the camp and a case-control study in the community, and reports each with its measure and interval. A prompt that supplies only descriptive data gets a sample that says what study would have been needed.
Is the Dunmore County outbreak modeled on a real event?
It is composite, though splash pad and pool outbreaks of Cryptosporidium are well documented in the United States, and recreational water is a leading setting for them. The best-known US outbreak of the parasite was different in kind: the 1993 Milwaukee event, spread through municipal drinking water, which MacKenzie and colleagues estimated sickened about 403,000 people.
Where can I find a free PU650 Unit 10 sample paper?
The complete Unit 10 report to the board of health, from the summary through the recommendations, can be read on this page.
What belongs in an outbreak report summary?
The final case count, the source and the strength of the evidence, the main control actions and the key recommendation, all on one page for readers who read nothing else.