Disaster Assistance Winners and Losers

Author(s):  
Maria Watson
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
H. Wayne Nelson ◽  
Bo Kyum Yang ◽  
F. Ellen Netting ◽  
Erin Monahan

AbstractThe high elder care death toll of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, pushed the federally mandated Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (LTCOP) into the unsought and unforeseen realm of disaster preparedness. This new role was an extension of the LTCOP’s historic resident’s rights investigative case advocacy. To assess if, how, and to what extent local ombudsmen adapted to this new function, 102 local LTCOP leaders completed a telephone survey based on the CMS Emergency Planning Checklist. This assessed their own and their programs’: (a) readiness to help facilities reduce disaster threats to residents, (b) familiarity with relevant disaster laws, rules, and resources; (c) readiness to help residents through the disaster cycle; and (d) levels of disaster training and/or their plans to provide such training to their staff and LTC stakeholders. Forty-two respondents (41.13%) had experienced a public disaster but over half or those responding (n = 56, 54.90%) felt fairly to somewhat prepared to help in a public crisis. After being ready to work away from their office during a crisis ($\overline{x}$ = 4.14, SD = 1.00) respondents felt most prepared “to assist during nursing home emergency closure and evacuation” ($\overline{x}$ = 3.86, SD = 1.09). t-tests revealed that respondents with a disaster experience were significantly more prepared in all assessed dimensions than as those without disaster experience. The study highlights the training needs of ombudsmen in high risk areas to better prepare them for disaster mitigation in nursing homes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-264
Author(s):  
Navreet Kaur ◽  
Lhoukhokai Sitlhou

Good governance emphasises upon efficient and effective institutional mechanism, greater transparency, people’s participation, citizen-centric services and accountability. These reforms are not only limited to national governance practices but also applicable to distribution, disbursement and effectiveness of development assistance. The objective of development assistance is to provide opportunities to needy, deprived and disadvantageous sections of the society. The available data on development assistance clearly demonstrate that rich countries, Development Assistance Countries (DACs) provide financial assistance to poor countries and it has reached US$100 billion in recent years. Non-DAC bilateral assistance (NDBA) is more than US$8 billion in Office of Disaster Assistance (ODA) and US$5 billion annually in country programmable aid (CPA). Private aid (PrA) from DAC members contribute between US$58 billion and 68 billion per year. Total aid flows to developing countries currently amount to around US$180 billion annually. Multilateral aid agencies (around 230) outnumber donors and recipients combined. But the harsh reality is high percentage of illiteracy, high child mortality, gender inequality, prevalence of corruption and exclusion of needy people from the development process. The examination of the process and procedures involved in development process revealed that there are many challenges in the process adopted for allocation, methodological limitations, evaluation limitation, lack of coordination among multiple agencies, political compulsions of donor and recipient countries, transparency, accountability and multidimensional global financial markets compulsions. Certain measures can make development more inclusive and sustainable. Collective efforts of all agencies are the need of the hour to achieve the targets of sustainable development. Coordination among multiple agencies, capacity building of target population and involvement of private agencies in the development process will pave the way for sustainable development.


Resilience ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Oliver Rogers ◽  
Eric K. Bardenhagen ◽  
Paula Lorente

Author(s):  
Sergio Tavares ◽  
Marcelo Perotoni ◽  
Fabio H. Cabrini ◽  
Sergio Takeo Kofuji

2004 ◽  
pp. 119-136
Author(s):  
Douglas A. Van Belle ◽  
Jean-Sébastien Rioux ◽  
David M. Potter

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph B. (Monty) Leonard ◽  
Lew W. Stringer ◽  
Roy Alson

AbstractIntroduction:In large disasters, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, rapid, adequate and documented medical care and distribution of patients are essential.Methods:After a major (magnitude 6.7 Richter scale) earthquake occurred in Southern California, nine disaster medical assistance teams and two Veterans Administration (VA) buses with VA personnel responded to staff four medical stations, 19 disaster-assistance centers, and two mobile vans. All were under the supervision of the medical support unit (MSU) and its supervising officer. This article describes the patient-data collection system used. All facilities used the same patient encounter forms, log sheets, and medical treatment forms. Copies of these records accompanied the patients during every transfer. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data classifications were used routinely. The MSU collected these forms twice each day so that all facilities had access to updated patient flow information.Results:Through the use of these methods, more than 11,000 victims were treated, transferred, and their cases tracked during a 12-day period.Conclusions:Use of this system by all federal responders to a major disaster area led to organized care for a large number of victims. Factors enhancing this care were the simplicity of the forms, the use of the forms by all federal responders, a central data collection point, and accessibility of the data at a known site available to all agencies every 12 hours.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document