Objective:The Australian Capital Territory Health Directorate was notified of a food handler with hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection. To guide the public health response, a rapid risk assessment was undertaken to determine the risk of transmission of HEV from the infected food handler to restaurant patrons.Method:The literature on HEV was reviewed and expert advice sought from clinical and public health specialists. This was supplemented by results of a site investigation and a case interview. The risk rating was determined to be the product of the likelihood of transmission and the consequence of the infection.Results:The food handler was likely to have been infectious at the time he was working at the restaurant. He had handled high-risk foods, and the site inspection revealed potential opportunities for transmission. HEV is not common in Australia and it was assumed that the population was non-immune and hence susceptible to the disease. Therefore, there was a low but possible likelihood of transmission of HEV. If infected, HEV has the potential for major consequences in vulnerable populations especially among women who are pregnant. The overall level of risk was considered to be very high.Discussion:The general public and health practitioners were alerted to enable early identification of symptoms and prompt disease management. There were no secondary cases of HEV associated with this event. In the absence of published guidelines and limited evidence, a risk assessment framework was a useful tool to inform public health decision-making.

Introduction: In April and June 2012, two outbreaks of Campylobacter gastroenteritis were investigated in an Australian aged-care facility (ACF); a Campylobacter -positive puppy was identified as a potential source of infection. Methods:An expert panel was convened to assess transmission risk from the puppy to elderly residents and to guide further public health action. Criteria considered as part of the panel’s assessment included the puppy’s infectivity, the bacterium’s transmissibility, puppy–resident contact, infection control and cleaning practices and animal management at the facility. A literature review was used to assist the panel, with a final risk being determined using a likelihood and consequence matrix. Results:The panel determined that the setting and low infective dose made transmission likely despite varying degrees of contact between the puppy and cases. While infection control practices were generally appropriate, the facility’s animal policy did not adequately address potential zoonotic risk. Conclusion:In summary, puppies should not be considered as companion animals in ACFs due to high rates of Campylobacter carriage and the underlying susceptibility of the elderly. Infection control and animal policies in ACFs should reflect an awareness of zoonotic disease potential.