scholarly journals Post-pandemic Recommendations: COVID-19 Continuity of Court Operations During a Public Health Emergency Workgroup

2022 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-119

In this report, the COVID-19 Continuity of Court Operations During a Public Health Emergency Workgroup (Plan B Workgroup) makes recommendations about best practices and technologies that should be retained or adapted post-pandemic. The recommendations in this final Plan B Workgroup whitepaper are based on experience and feedback from Arizona’s courts addressing pandemic and post-pandemic practices. Although the original report, issued on June 2, 2021, included a May 2021 Survey of Arizona’s Courts, this updated report also includes information from a July 2021 State Bar of Arizona Survey and a September 2021 State of Arizona Public Opinion Survey addressing those practices. The workgroup’s findings and recommendations, which remain unchanged, can be summarized in five major categories: (1) Increasing Access to Justice, (2) Expanding Use of Technology, (3) Jury and Trial Management, (4) Communication Strategies and Disaster Preparedness, and (5) Health, Safety, and Security Protocols.

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tesfaye M. Bayleyegn ◽  
Amy H. Schnall ◽  
Shimere G. Ballou ◽  
David F. Zane ◽  
Sherry L. Burrer ◽  
...  

AbstractIntroductionCommunity Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) is an epidemiologic technique designed to provide quick, inexpensive, accurate, and reliable household-based public health information about a community’s emergency response needs. The Health Studies Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides in-field assistance and technical support to state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) health departments in conducting CASPERs during a disaster response and in non-emergency settings. Data from CASPERs conducted from 2003 through 2012 were reviewed to describe uses of CASPER, ascertain strengths of the CASPER methodology, and highlight significant findings.MethodsThrough an assessment of the CDC’s CASPER metadatabase, all CASPERs that involved CDC support performed in US states and territories from 2003 through 2012 were reviewed and compared descriptively for differences in geographic distribution, sampling methodology, mapping tool, assessment settings, and result and action taken by decision makers.ResultsFor the study period, 53 CASPERs were conducted in 13 states and one US territory. Among the 53 CASPERS, 38 (71.6%) used the traditional 2-stage cluster sampling methodology, 10 (18.8%) used a 3-stage cluster sampling, and two (3.7%) used a simple random sampling methodology. Among the CASPERs, 37 (69.9%) were conducted in response to specific natural or human-induced disasters, including 14 (37.8%) for hurricanes. The remaining 16 (30.1%) CASPERS were conducted in non-disaster settings to assess household preparedness levels or potential effects of a proposed plan or program. The most common recommendations resulting from a disaster-related CASPER were to educate the community on available resources (27; 72.9%) and provide services (18; 48.6%) such as debris removals and refills of medications. In preparedness CASPERs, the most common recommendations were to educate the community in disaster preparedness (5; 31.2%) and to revise or improve preparedness plans (5; 31.2%). Twenty-five (47.1%) CASPERs documented on the report or publications the public health action has taken based on the result or recommendations. Findings from 27 (50.9%) of the CASPERs conducted with CDC assistance were published in peer-reviewed journals or elsewhere.ConclusionThe number of CASPERs conducted with CDC assistance has increased and diversified over the past decade. The CASPERs’ results and recommendations supported the public health decisions that benefitted the community. Overall, the findings suggest that the CASPER is a useful tool for collecting household-level disaster preparedness and response data and generating information to support public health action.BayleyegnTM, SchnallAH, BallouSG, ZaneDF, BurrerSL, NoeRS, WolkinAF. Use of Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs) to rapidly assess public health issues — United States, 2003-2012. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(4):1-8.


2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 387-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine Daily ◽  
Patricia Padjen ◽  
Marvin Birnbaum

AbstractIntroduction:In order to prepare the healthcare system and healthcare personnel to meet the health needs of populations affected by disasters, educational programs have been developed by numerous academic institutions, hospitals, professional organizations, governments, and non-government organizations. Lacking standards for best practices as a foundation, many organizations and institutions have developed “core competencies” that they consider essential knowledge and skills for disaster healthcare personnel.Problem:The Nursing Section of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) considered the possibility of endorsing an existing set of competencies that could be used to prepare nurses universally to participate in disaster health activities. This study was undertaken for the purpose of reviewing published disaster health competencies to determine commonalities and universal applicability for disaster preparedness.Methods:In 2007, a review of the electronic literature databases was conducted using the major keywords: disaster response competencies; disaster preparedness competencies; emergency response competencies; disaster planning competencies; emergency planning competencies; public health emergency preparedness competencies; disaster nursing competencies; and disaster nursing education competencies. A manual search of references and selected literature from public and private sources also was conducted. Inclusion criteria included: English language; competencies listed or specifically referred to; competencies relevant to disaster, mass-casualty incident (MCI), or public health emergency; and competencies relevant to healthcare.Results:Eighty-six articles were identified; 20 articles failed to meet the initial inclusion criteria; 27 articles did not meet the additional criteria, leaving 39 articles for analysis. Twenty-eight articles described competencies targeted to a specific profession/discipline, while 10 articles described competencies targeted to a defined role or function during a disaster. Four of the articles described specific competencies according to skill level, rather than to a specific role or function. One article defined competencies according to specific roles as well as proficiency levels. Two articles categorized disaster nursing competencies according to the phases of the disaster management continuum. Fourteen articles described specified competencies as “core” competencies for various target groups, while one article described “cross-cutting” competencies applicable to all healthcare workers.Conclusions:Hundreds of competencies for disaster healthcare personnel have been developed and endorsed by governmental and professional organizations and societies. Imprecise and inconsistent terminology and structure are evident throughout the reviewed competency sets. Universal acceptance and application of these competencies are lacking and none have been validated. Further efforts must be directed to developing a framework and standardized terminology for the articulation of competency sets for disaster health professionals that can by accepted and adapted universally.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Savoia ◽  
Jessica Preston ◽  
Paul D. Biddinger

AbstractIntroductionThe objective of disaster preparedness is to ensure that appropriate systems, procedures, and resources are in place to provide prompt, effective assistance to disaster victims, thus facilitating relief measures and rehabilitation of services. Disaster preparedness efforts include the identification of possible health scenarios based on the probability of hazards and vulnerability of the population as a basis for creating a disaster plan. Exercises that simulate emergency response, involving the health and other sectors, have been suggested as useful tools to test the plans on a regular basis and measure preparedness efforts; the absence of actual testing is likely to negate even the best of abstract plans.ProblemExercises and after action reports (AARs) are used to document preparedness activities. However, to date, limited analysis has been performed on what makes an exercise an effective tool to assess public health emergency preparedness (PHEP), and how AARs can be developed and used to support PHEP improvement efforts. The scope of this project was to achieve consensus on: (1) what makes an exercise an effective tool to assess PHEP; and (2) what makes an AAR an effective tool to guide PHEP improvement efforts.MethodsSixty-one PHEP experts were convened by the use of Nominal Group Techniques to achieve consensus on a series of characteristics that exercises should have when designed to assess PHEP and on the recommendations for developing high-quality AARs.ResultsThe panelists achieved consensus on a list of recommendations to improve the use of exercises and AARs in PHEP improvement efforts. Such recommendations ranged from the characteristics of the exercise audience to the evaluation methodology being used and the characteristics of the produced AAR such as its structure and content.ConclusionsThe characteristics of the exercise audience, scenario and scope are among the most important attributes to the effectiveness of an exercise conducted for PHEP evaluation purposes. The evaluation instruments used to gather observations need an appropriate matching between exercise objectives and the response capabilities tested during the exercise, to build the base for the production of a good AAR. Improvements in the design and creation of exercises and AARs could facilitate better reporting and measurement of preparedness outcomes.SavoiaE, PrestonJ, BiddingerPD. A consensus process on the use of exercises and after action reports to assess and improve public health emergency preparedness and response. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(3):1-4.


2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale C. Alverson ◽  
Karen Edison ◽  
Larry Flournoy ◽  
Brenda Korte ◽  
Charles Magruder ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 777-781
Author(s):  
Natasha Sanchez Cristal ◽  
Noel Metcalf ◽  
Debra Kreisberg ◽  
Charles M. Little

ABSTRACTThe aim of this study is to enrich public health emergency management (PHEM) curricula and increase the workforce readiness of graduates through the implementation of an innovative curriculum structure centered around simulation and the creation of authentic learning experiences into a mastery-based Disaster Preparedness graduate certificate program launched in 2016 at the Colorado School of Public Health. Learners progress through a sequence of increasingly complex discussion and operations-based exercises designed to align with training methodologies used by future employers in the disaster response field, covering PHEM fundamentals and domestic and international disaster preparedness and response. Preliminary feedback is overwhelmingly positive, equating the experience to securing an internship. Embedding simulation-based exercises and authentic learning environments into graduate curricula exposes learners to diverse disaster scenarios, provides occasion for practicing critical thinking and dynamic problem solving, increases familiarity with anticipated emergency situations, and builds the confidence necessary for exercising judgment in a real-world situation. This novel curriculum should serve as a model for graduate programs wishing to enrich traditional training tactics using a typical school of public health support and alignment with community resources. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:777–781)


2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 64-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel O’Brien ◽  
Clifford M. Rees ◽  
Ernest Abbott ◽  
Elisabeth Belmont ◽  
Amy Eiden ◽  
...  

This is one of four interrelated action agenda papers resulting from the National Summit on Public Health Legal Preparedness convened in June 2007 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and nineteen multi-disciplinary partner organizations. Each of the action agenda papers deals with one of the four core elements of public health legal preparedness: laws and legal authorities; competency in using those laws; coordination of law-based public health actions; and information. Options presented in this paper are for consideration by policymakers and practitioners — in all jurisdictions and all relevant sectors and disciplines — with responsibilities for all-hazards emergency preparedness.This paper focuses on the fourth core element: information that can be used in shaping and applying law as a public health tool, specifically in the context of public health emergencies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Efeose A. Airewele ◽  
Henry Sunpath ◽  
Mahomed-Yunus S. Moosa ◽  
Rajesh T. Gandhi

In many ways, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic mirrors the challenges, lessons and opportunities of the HIV pandemic. In this article, we argue that global pandemics such as COVID-19 and HIV require a global response. We highlight the HIV Online Provider Education (HOPE) programme as an example of the importance of global communication when combating a pandemic. From both the COVID-19 and HIV pandemics, we have learned that to optimise health worldwide, it is necessary to have effective and efficient means of swiftly sharing experiences, expertise, best practices and guidelines. To prepare for the next public health emergency, clinicians and researchers must put in place and promote effective programmes for global communication.


Author(s):  
MZM Nomani ◽  
Rehana Parveen

Background: The Integrated Disease Surveillance Project (IDSP), 2004 addresses disaster preparedness, disease surveillance, disease data to respond to epidemics. The 12th Five Year Plan envisages disease surveillance for district-level laboratories and epidemic-centric diagnostic centers in consultation with the National Informatics Centers (NIC) and Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). Objectives: These health policies need a critical appraisal in the COVID-19 pandemic and disaster preparedness in India’s system. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW) and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) pandemic cum disaster mitigation strategy analysed from risk mitigation to public health emergency in disaster management. The three-tier network labs and diagnostic centers, disease surveillance and disaster preparedness examined critically in the context of Disaster Management Act (DMA), 2005. Methodology: The methodology of the study derives from European disaster management response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization (WHO) India Chapter and National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) disaster management strategies utilized as model for the epidemic and pandemic control. The SIR epidemiological model for the COVID-19 mortality applied in the emergency paradigm of health care system in COVID-19 pandemic. Results: COVID-19 pandemic and disaster preparedness in India revolves around the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and Epidemic Diseases Act (EDA), 1897 Disaster Management Act (DMA), 2005, and Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. The sordid and wise experiences for the Disaster Management and COVID-19 pandemic culminate into 5 Ps Disaster Management adopted by India.5 It spells out the proof of concept with social experiment, proactive approach, people management, partnership, preparation, and collaboration. Conclusion: The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) assumes a pivotal role in controlling the infection and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic under the WHO Guideline of the disaster management cycle having a multi-component approach. The COVID-19 pandemic and disaster preparedness in India’s health system moved from risk mitigation to public health emergency in disaster management. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.20(5) 2021 p.41-48


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document