The document proposes a monthly community workshop for lead poisoned patients at University Hospital and their families to help address the ongoing issue of lead poisoning. It provides background on lead poisoning, including where it comes from and who is most affected, and outlines a plan for the workshop along with costs and support from the University Hospital Lead Poisoning Program. The workshop aims to help patients and families through education, support, and lifestyle changes to complement medical treatment.

1. By: XXX

2. OVERVIEW
 Problem: The difficulty in eradicating lead poisoning.
 Population: The lead poisoned patients of The University
Hospital.
 Models:
 Newark Lead Poisoning Prevention and Control Program
 The Treatment of Lead-Exposed Children Clinical Trial
 Plan: A monthly community workshop for lead poisoned
University Hospital patients and their families.
 Patron:
 The University Hospital’s Lead Poisoning Program
 Price: $18,200

3. Where does lead poisoning come
from?
 Today exposure to the toxin is due to paint and
dust.
 Lead’s use in paint was not prohibited by the
government until 1978.
 A vast amount of American homes are over
100 years old.
(Mahoney, 1990)

4. Who is affected?
 The majority of lead poisoning cases are known to be in
poor areas consisting of low-income families and
devastating housing.
 Areas like these lack the money not only for lead removal but
also for nutrition and legal action.
 Calcium for example has the ability to block lead absorption. However
children living in poor areas lack sufficient calcium intake.
(Bruening, 1999)
 Children are more affected by lead than adults are.
 Why?
 hand-to-mouth activity
 A child’s gut absorbs lead more readily than an adult’s.
 The developing CNS is less tolerant of toxicants than the mature CNS.
 The mere exposure of kids to lead paint surroundings, without the child
necessarily eating paint chips, can cause lifelong affliction.
(Needleman, 2003)

5. Effects of Lead Poisoning
 neurological damage
 mental retardation
 cerebral palsy
 seizures
 visual-motor deficiencies
 behavioral problems
(Mahoney, 1990, p.50).
 Lead poisoned children are more likely to
do poorly in or drop out of school.
(Needleman, 2003)

6. Negative teachers’ ratings in relation to dentin lead concentrations
45
40
35
% Reported by Teachers
30
<5.1 (ppm)
25 5.1-8.1 (ppm)
20 8.2-11.8 (ppm)
11.9-17.1 (ppm)
15
17.2-27.0 (ppm)
10 >27.0 (ppm)
5
0
Distractible Day Dreamer Low Overall
Functioning
(Needleman, 2003)

7. Remove all lead paint.
 This is the best and only way to eradicate lead from
homes.
 However it would cost a great deal to do so.
 The removal of lead paint needs to be done professionally.
 Temporary housing would need to be supplied for families during
the process.
 Total costs are therefore in the thousands per household.
 Implementation of a law in order to speed up the process
of lead removal has been an issue because the
government does not know whether a law should be
enforced on the tenant, owner or the tax payers.
(Mahoney, 1990)

8. Besides prevention what other
option is there?
 The medical approach CDC’s Action Level for
uses children as the Blood Lead in Children
lead detectors. 70
 Medical action is not considered 60
until children test positive for lead. 50
ug/dL
40
30
20
10
 Children must meet 0
CDC standards in
order to be treated.
(U.S. Department of Human Services, Public Health
Service Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry, 1992)

9. Let us take a look at
Newark.
 Newark has been tackling the issue of
lead poisoning since 1969.
 The Newark Lead Poisoning Prevention
and Control Program (1972-1980)
 The Treatment of Lead-Exposed
Children clinical trial (1994-2003)
 Lead Poisoning Program at The
University Hospital

10. The Newark Lead Poisoning
Prevention and Control
Program Admission Rates by Year of First
 It failed due to
Admission per 10,000 Newark Children 1-6
Years of Age
budget cuts and 30
Newark’s increase in25
poverty level.
Admission 20
Rate
15
10
5
0
(Schneider & Lavenhar, 1986) Year of Admission

11. Treatment of Lead-Exposed
Children (TLC)
 It was conducted in 4 total cities
showing the highest rate of success in
Newark.
 The following six guidelines are why the
trial was a success in Newark.
1. Be accessible
2. Relate to the patient
3. Offer the patient consolation
4. Educate the patient
5. Keep the patient up to date
6. Implement a change in the patient’s lifestyle

12. Plan
 Start a monthly community workshop for
lead poisoned University Hospital patients
and their families.
 More efficient than hiring individual social
workers.
 Patients’ and their families will be able to
offer consultation, advice and friendship to
one another. They are also more likely to
relate to one another than to a social
worker.

13. Costs
 12 Workshops/year
 Facilitators……………………$12,000
 Refreshments………………..$1,200
 Activity Essentials…………...$5,000
 Space…………………………$0
 Provided by the city of Newark
TOTAL: $18,200
(estimations made based on 100 workshop members)

14. Patron
 The Lead Poisoning Program at The
University Hospital headed by Dr.
Steven M. Marcus
 The addition of the workshop would
complete the 6 guidelines for the lead
poisoning program and therefore
improve treatment outcomes.