Survey Findings. Locations where the samples were collected are shown on Drawings 1.1 and 1.2 presented in Appendix A. A summary of the bulk sample analysis results are presented in Table A presented in Appendix B. The laboratory analysis report is presented in Appendix C. Selected photographs taken during the survey are presented in Appendix E. Asbestos was not detected in any of the forty-five (45) samples collected and analyzed. It should be noted that O. Reg. 278/05 s.3 sets out the minimum number of bulk material samples to be collected from an area of homogeneous material. No samples were taken of glass fibre applications as this material can be positively identified visually and does not contain asbestos. The following is a brief discussion of the suspect asbestos-containing materials identified and sampled.
Survey Findings. The top three challenges participants selected for implementing MDSR in Haiti were identifying all WRA who die in the community; compiling WRA death data from both the community and the facility; and collecting (or triangulating) maternal death information from multiple sources. Further, the most common mistakes among staff at all levels when reporting maternal deaths are failing to complete all necessary forms and failing to submit these forms to the appropriate recipient in a timely manner. The most challenging part of the MDSR process for a CHW is determining the cause(s) of a death that takes place in the community. It was also noted that both community and facility staff need further training and/or information on which forms to use/how to complete them, the importance of MDSR, and the general sequence of the system. For adaptation purposes, the results suggested the need for a strong supervisory presence throughout the guidelines chapters that address reporting and notification processes, specifically to ensure that both of these processes happen at the community level. The MDSR Facility Coordinator (FC) should thus identify key informants (KIs) at the community level where CHWs are not present and ensure that they use and complete the appropriate forms. Supervisors at both the facility and community levels should also ensure KIs and CHWs know how to identify deaths and that they both know when to report/submit forms to the facility, respectively. These activities have been integrated into the MDSR: Implementation Guidelines for Haiti. Respondents also suggested that the most convenient way to aggregate information on community deaths is first through individual community-level review committees as opposed to at the facility or department review committees. Logically, this does make the sense. However, SMEs felt it important to establish the largest review committee(s) first and the grassroots committees last. In this way, the basic review infrastructure exists and the process for national decision making can begin. Establishing community review committees is ideal and should be considered a long-term objective once national, department, and facility review committees have been adequately established. Further validating this decision, the WHO MDSR Technical Guidance (2013) recommends that, when transitioning to an MDSR system, the “…depth [starting point] of the review should provide the most benefit for the least cost” and that “...the simplest and ...
Survey Findings. State-level Personnel According to survey data, 37 out of the 46 responding SEAs have one or more state-level personnel dedicated to issues relating to students who are D/HH. Thirty-three of the 37 included information on full-time equivalency (FTE). Eight SEAs reported having exactly one (1.0) FTE staff person. Sixteen SEAs reported having less than one FTE staff person—the range was from .1 FTE to .95 FTE. Nine SEAs reported having more than one FTE staff person—the range was from 1.2 FTE to 11 FTE. These results are displayed in Table 1. Table 1 – State Personnel Devoted to Deaf and Hard of Hearing Issues (n = 33) 1.0 FTE < 1.0 FTE > 1.0 FTE CA, GU, IA, KS, MN, NY, NC, OH AL, AK, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, ND, PA, RI, SC, UT, WV, WI AR, KY, MD, NE, NJ, OR, TX, VA, WY Total = 8 Total = 16 Total = 9 State-operated Schools for the Deaf As depicted in Table 2, 36 of the 46 responding SEAs reported having one or more state- operated schools for the deaf; 10 reported having no state-operated school for the deaf.3 Of the 36, 25 reported that the state school board has jurisdiction over the school for the deaf and seven reported that other departments or agencies (e.g., Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Rehabilitative Services, Board of Regents or the state legislature), have jurisdiction over the state school for the deaf. Four states described “other” types of jurisdiction: ▪ Maryland and South Carolina reported that their schools for the deaf constitute their own state agencies; ▪ Arkansas reported that a Board of Trustees provides immediate jurisdiction, but ultimate jurisdiction lies with the state board of education (e.g., supervision and accreditation). ▪ New Hampshire reported that the board of education has authorized the school for the deaf as a public charter school and the Bureau of Accountability and the Bureau of Special Education serve as consultants to the school.
Survey Findings. According to the survey findings, 26 people over the age of 18 responded to the social media survey. The survey was specifically set to reach 5,000 people within the three-mile area. Each potential respondent was asked to select the closest landmark to their current residence. The results were as follows: 46.15% lived near Xxxxxx Elementary School, 34.62% lived near MUSC Florence Hospital, and 19.23% lived near Xxxx Xxxxxxxx High School. Of the 26 people who responded to the survey, 23 were White, two were Black, and one was Hispanic. Additionally, from a list of income range choices, 19.2% reported an income of $13,000– $21,000, 11.54% reported $22,000–$32,000, 11.54% reported $33,000–$50,000, 30.77% reported $51,000–$75,000, and 26.92% reported above $75,000. Of the respondents, 96.1% believed poverty to be an issue in their community, and 92.31% believed diabetes to be an issue. Furthermore, 57.69% of the respondents believed that local churches do not adequately address poverty in their communities. In addition, 76.92% of the respondents stated that they practice good nutritional habits, 50% knew their glucose (sugar and A1C) numbers, and 84% of respondents stated that they would be willing to participate in free educational workshops on health, cooking better meals, and creating a home garden if offered.
Survey Findings
