A Cross-Sectional Study on China’s Public Health Emergency Personnel’s Field Coping-Capacity: Need, Influencing Factors, and Improvement Options

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-200
Author(s):  
Miaomiao Zhao ◽  
Baohua Liu ◽  
Lan Wang ◽  
Qunhong Wu ◽  
Zheng Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Crisis Communication ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Personal Protection ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Coping Capacity ◽  
Preparedness Planning

ABSTRACTObjective:This study aimed to identify the important capacities that were most urgently needed during emergency response and factors associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) professionals’ field coping-capacity for public health emergency.Methods:Professional workers (N = 1854) from 40 CDC institutions were chosen using the stratified cluster random sampling method in all 13 municipalities of Heilongjiang Province, China. Descriptive analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used.Results:Of 10 key capacities, the 3 that were most urgently needed during emergency response fieldwork as identified by respondents were crisis communication capacity, personal protection capacity, and laboratory detection capacity. Overall, 38.1% of respondents self-rated as “poor” on their coping-capacity. The logistic regression found that proficiency in emergency preparedness planning, more practical experiences in emergency response, effectiveness in training and drills, a higher education level, and a higher professional position were significantly associated with the individual’s field coping-capacity.Conclusion:This study identified CDC professionals’ most urgent capacity need and the obstructive factors and highlighted the importance of enhancing the capacity in crisis communication, personal protection, and laboratory detection. Intervention should be targeted at sufficient fund, formalized, and effective emergency training and drills, more operational technical guidance, and all-around supervision and evaluation.

Developing an instrument to measure household radiological emergency preparedness using the Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) methodology: An evidence-informed approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-305
Author(s):  
Rennie W. Ferguson, DrPH, MHS ◽  
Daniel J. Barnett, MD, MPH ◽  
Ryan David Kennedy, PhD ◽  
Tara Kirk Sell, PhD, MA ◽  
Jessica S. Wieder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Management ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Survey Instrument ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Community Assessment ◽  
Radiological Emergency ◽  
Preparedness Planning ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response

Introduction: Community assessments to measure emergency preparedness can inform policies, planning, and communication to the public to improve readiness and response if an emergency was to occur. Public health and emergency management officials need an effective assessment tool to measure community preparedness for a radiological emergency. Methods: The authors created a survey instrument to collect data on household radiological emergency preparedness that could be implemented using the Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) methodology, developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To inform the development of the tool, the authors examined existing CASPER surveys, focusing on identifying best practices for creating a survey instrument, as well as analyzing the results of a survey of radiation preparedness experts and state/local health and emergency management officials. Results: The developed survey tool includes 32 questions covering four domains: communication in an emergency, preparedness planning, physical/behavioral health, and demographics. The instrument captures information related to identified barriers in communicating in a radiological emergency as well as self-reported behaviors that could potentially be influenced through awareness and education.Discussion: Using the proposed survey instrument and following the existing rapid assessment methodology provided by CASPER, public health and emergency management agencies can collect valuable information on the radiation preparedness needs of their communities, which can then be used to improve household readiness for an emergency.

Assessing Radiation Emergency Preparedness Planning by Using Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Methodology

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 262-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mawuli K. Nyaku ◽  
Amy F. Wolkin ◽  
Jevon McFadden ◽  
Jim Collins ◽  
Michelle Murti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Sampling Design ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Community Assessment ◽  
Preparedness Planning ◽  
Oakland County ◽  
Radiation Emergency ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response

AbstractIntroductionApproximately 1.2 million persons in Oakland County, Michigan (USA) reside less than 50 miles from the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, but information is limited regarding how residents might react during a radiation emergency. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) survey methodology has been used in disaster and nondisaster settings to collect reliable and accurate population-based public health information, but it has not been used to assess household-level emergency preparedness for a radiation emergency. To improve emergency preparedness plans in Oakland County, including how residents might respond during a radiation emergency, Oakland County Health Division (OCHD), with assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH), conducted a CASPER survey.MethodsDuring September 2012, a 2-stage cluster sampling design was used to select 210 representative households in Oakland County. By using in-person surveys, the proportion of households with essential needs and supplies, how residents might respond to public health authorities’ instructions, and their main source for obtaining information during a radiation emergency were assessed. Data were weighted to account for the complex sampling design.ResultsOf the goal of 210 households, 192 (91.4%) surveys were completed: 64.7% and 85.4% of respondents indicated having 3-day supplies of water and of nonperishable food, respectively; 62.8% had a 7-day supply of prescription medication for each person who needed it. Additionally, 64.2% had a working carbon monoxide detector; 67.1% had a first-aid kit; and 52% had an alternative heat source. In response to instructions from public health officials during a radiation emergency, 93.3% of all respondents would report to a radiation screening center; 96% would evacuate; and 91.8% would shelter-in-place. During a radiation emergency, 55.8% of respondents indicated their main information source would be television, 18.4% radio, and 13.6% the Internet. The most trusted source for information would be the local public health department (36.5%), local news (23%), a physician (11.2%), and family members (11.1%). Including completed and incomplete interviews, refusals, and nonrespondents, 517 total households were contacted.ConclusionsCASPER data regarding how residents might react during a radiation emergency provided objective and quantifiable information that will be used to develop Oakland County's radiation emergency preparedness plans. Survey information demonstrates the feasibility and usefulness of CASPER methodology for radiation emergency preparedness planning.NyakuMK, WolkinAF, McFaddenJ, CollinsJ, MurtiM, SchnallA, BiesS, StanburyM, BeggsJ, BayleyegnTM. Assessing radiation emergency preparedness planning by using Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) methodology. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(3):1-9.

Public Policy Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Blood Supply in the United States

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e7
Author(s):  
William Riley ◽  
Kailey Love ◽  
Jeffrey McCullough
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Blood Supply ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Preparedness Planning ◽  
The Impact

The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated an acute blood shortage for medical transfusions, exacerbating an already tenuous blood supply system in the United States, contributing to the public health crisis, and raising deeper questions regarding emergency preparedness planning for ensuring blood availability. However, these issues around blood availability during the pandemic are related primarily to the decline in supply caused by reduced donations during the pandemic rather than increased demand for transfusion of patients with COVID-19. The challenges to ensure a safe blood supply during the pandemic will continue until a vaccine is developed, effective treatments are available, or the virus goes away. If this virus or a similar virus were capable of transmission through blood, it would have a catastrophic impact on the health care system, causing a future public health emergency that would jeopardize the national blood supply. In this article, we identify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood supply adequacy, discuss the public health implications, propose recovery strategies, and present recommendations for preparing for the next disruption in blood supply driven by a public health emergency. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print March 18, 2021: e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306157 )

Principles of public health emergency response for acute environmental, chemical, and radiation incidents

2021 ◽  
pp. 739-750
Author(s):  
Virginia Murray ◽  
Thomas Waite ◽  
Paul Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Environmental Chemical ◽  
Public Health Risk ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response

In recent years there have been many environmental, chemical, and radiation disasters that have challenged the emergency preparedness of countries around the globe. This chapter on the principles of public health emergency response for acute environmental, chemical, and radiation incidents summarizes the stages of response to emergencies using a generic ‘all hazards’ framework and a ‘source–pathway–receptor’ risk assessment model which is adaptable to any situation and conforms with international obligations. The stages identified address incident management arrangements for emergency response including international obligations; public health risk assessment; public health risk management techniques and countermeasures; public reassurance in emergencies and incidents and finally the need to identify and publish the lessons from incidents Remembering that before any response can be mounted, the event has to be detected and identified as requiring special action. Detection requires early warning and forecasting to clinical awareness, timely surveillance, and intelligence. A significant number of evidence gaps remain and so detailed documentation and follow-up of future incidents will continue to be needed to fill those gaps and improve emergency preparedness and response in the future. By the use of case studies of some significant environmental, chemical, and radiological incidents and processes the stages of the emergency response are illustrated to facilitate an all hazards approach.

scholarly journals Addressing Community Needs During the Hurricane Response and Recovery Efforts Through Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER)—United States Virgin Islands, 2017-2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Helene Schnall ◽  
Joseph (Jay) Roth ◽  
Brett Ellis ◽  
Krystal Seger ◽  
Michelle Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Recovery Process ◽  
Virgin Islands ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Cluster Sampling ◽  
Current Response ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response ◽  
Response And Recovery

ABSTRACTObjectivesTwo category 5 storms hit the US Virgin Islands (USVI) within 13 days of each other in September 2017. This caused an almost complete loss of power and devastated critical infrastructure such as the hospitals and airportsMethodsThe USVI Department of Health conducted 2 response Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs) in November 2017 and a recovery CASPER in February 2018. CASPER is a 2-stage cluster sampling method designed to provide household-based information about a community’s needs in a timely, inexpensive, and representative manner.ResultsAlmost 70% of homes were damaged or destroyed, 81.2% of homes still needed repair, and 10.4% of respondents felt their home was unsafe to live in approximately 5 months after the storms. Eighteen percent of individual respondents indicated that their mental health was “not good” for 14 or more days in the past month, a significant increase from 2016.ConclusionThe CASPERs helped characterize the status and needs of residents after the devastating hurricanes and illustrate the evolving needs of the community and the progression of the recovery process. CASPER findings were shared with response and recovery partners to promote data-driven recovery efforts, improve the efficiency of the current response and recovery efforts, and strengthen emergency preparedness in USVI. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:53-62)

Public Health Emergency Preparedness System Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics: A Review of Contributions of the CDC-Funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (03) ◽  
pp. 626-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shoukat H. Qari ◽  
Hussain R. Yusuf ◽  
Samuel L. Groseclose ◽  
Mary R. Leinhos ◽  
Eric G. Carbone
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
System Evaluation ◽  
Research Centers ◽  
Public Health Preparedness ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness

ABSTRACTObjectivesThe US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) conducted research from 2008 to 2015 aimed to improve the complex public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system. This paper summarizes PERRC studies that addressed the development and assessment of criteria for evaluating PHEPR and metrics for measuring their efficiency and effectiveness.MethodsWe reviewed 171 PERRC publications indexed in PubMed between 2009 and 2016. These publications derived from 34 PERRC research projects. We identified publications that addressed the development or assessment of criteria and metrics pertaining to PHEPR systems and describe the evaluation methods used and tools developed, the system domains evaluated, and the metrics developed or assessed.ResultsWe identified 29 publications from 12 of the 34 PERRC projects that addressed PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics. We grouped each study into 1 of 3 system domains, based on the metrics developed or assessed: (1) organizational characteristics (n = 9), (2) emergency response performance (n = 12), and (3) workforce capacity or capability (n = 8). These studies addressed PHEPR system activities including responses to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the 2011 tsunami, as well as emergency exercise performance, situational awareness, and workforce willingness to respond. Both PHEPR system process and outcome metrics were developed or assessed by PERRC studies.ConclusionsPERRC researchers developed and evaluated a range of PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics that should be considered by system partners interested in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities. Nonetheless, the monitoring and measurement problem in PHEPR is far from solved. Lack of standard measures that are readily obtained or computed at local levels remains a challenge for the public health preparedness field. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:626-638)

State of public health emergency response leadership training: A multitiered organizational perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-177
Author(s):  
Anthony Salerno, MSc ◽  
Yang Li, MPH, MS ◽  
Xiaohong M. Davis, PhD, MS, MA ◽  
Gail Stennies, MD, MPH ◽  
Daniel J. Barnett, MD, MPH ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Leadership Training ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Common Factor ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Public Health Emergency Response

Objective: To capture organizational level information on the current state of public health emergency response leadership training.Design: A web-based questionnaire.Participants: This multitiered assessment of health departments included two distinct respondent groups: (1) Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement recipients (n = 34) and (2) local health departments (LHDs) (n = 169) representative of different agency sizes and populations served.Results: Overall, PHEP and LHD respondents expressed a clear preference for participatory learning with practical drills/exercises and participatory workshops as the preferred training delivery modes. Compared with technical and role-specific training, leadership training was less available. For both PHEP and LHD respondents, staff availability for training is most notably limited due to lack of time. For PHEP respondents, a common factor limiting agency ability to offer training is lack of mentors/instructors, whereas for LHD respondents, it is limited funding.Conclusions: Efforts should focus on increasing accessibility and the continued development of rigorous and effective training based on practical experience in all aspects of multitiered public health emergency response leadership. 

Ready, Willing, and Able: A Framework for Improving the Public Health Emergency Preparedness System

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Lee McCabe ◽  
Daniel J. Barnett ◽  
Henry G. Taylor ◽  
Jonathan M. Links
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
High Quality ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Comprehensive Framework ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient

ABSTRACTEvery society is exposed periodically to catastrophes and public health emergencies that are broad in scale. Too often, these experiences reveal major deficits in the quality of emergency response. A critical barrier to achieving preparedness for high-quality, system-based emergency response is the absence of a universal framework and common language to guide the pursuit of that goal. We describe a simple but comprehensive framework to encourage a focused conversation to improve preparedness for the benefit of individuals, families, organizations, communities, and society as a whole. We propose that constructs associated with the well-known expression “ready, willing, and able” represent necessary and sufficient elements for a standardized approach to ensure high-quality emergency response across the disparate entities that make up the public health emergency preparedness system. The “ready, willing, and able” constructs are described and specific applications are offered to illustrate the broad applicability and heuristic value of the model. Finally, prospective steps are outlined for initiating and advancing a dialogue that may directly lead to or inform already existing efforts to develop quality standards, measures, guidance, and (potentially) a national accreditation program.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2010;4:161-168)

scholarly journals Towards defining core principles of public health emergency preparedness: scoping review and Delphi consultation among European Union country experts

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelien Belfroid ◽  
Dorothee Roβkamp ◽  
Graham Fraser ◽  
Corien Swaan ◽  
Aura Timen
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
National Level ◽  
European Union Country ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Preparedness Planning ◽  
Consensus Procedure ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness

Abstract Background European Member States, the European Commission and its agencies work together to enhance preparedness and response for serious cross-border threats to health such as Ebola. Yet, common understanding of public health emergency preparedness across EU/EEA countries is challenging, because preparedness is a relatively new field of activity and is inherently fraught with uncertainty. A set of practical, widely accepted and easy to use recommendations for generic preparedness that bundles the activities described in separate guidance documents supports countries in preparing for any possible health threat. The aim of this consensus procedure was to identify and seek consensus from national-level preparedness experts from EU/EEA countries on key recommendations of public health emergency preparedness. Methods To identify key recommendations and to prioritize the recommendations we started with a literature consensus procedure, followed by a modified Delphi method for consultation of public health emergency preparedness leaders of EU/EEA countries. This consisted of six consecutive steps: a questionnaire to achieve consensus on a core set of recommendations, a face-to-face consultation, preselection of prioritized recommendations, a questionnaire to achieve consensus on the prioritized set and a face-to-face consensus meeting to further prioritize recommendations. Results As a result, EU/EEA experts selected 149 recommendations as core preparedness principles and prioritized 42. The recommendations were grouped in the seven domains: governance (57), capacity building and maintenance (11), surveillance (19), risk-assessment (16), risk- and crisis management (35), post-event evaluation (6) and implementation of lessons learned (5). Conclusions This prioritised set of consensus principles can provide a foundation for countries aiming to evaluate and improve their preparedness for public health emergencies. The recommendations are practical, support generic preparedness planning, and can be used by all countries irrespective of their current level of preparedness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document