COVID-19: Exposing the need for emergency management to invest in systems thinking

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 39-48
Author(s):  
Ralph Renger, PhD, MEP

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed numerous challenges in the emergency management (EM) response system. The article contends that had EM deliberately and systematically engaged in systems thinking; it would have been better able to anticipate and respond to many of the challenges. Reasons for EM not fully embracing systems thinking are discussed, including the perception that it is complex and theoretical. This article attempts to dispel these beliefs by first demonstrating how many systems-thinking concepts are already embedded in the EM ethos and then by illustrating the application of system principles in the context of the COVID-19 response. This article concludes by recommending EM invest in training to encourage the systematic application of system principles in emergency preparedness and response.

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. S243-S248 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Perko ◽  
M. Martell ◽  
C. Turcanu

Stakeholder involvement and transparency are strongly interrelated. Stakeholder involvement is key to strengthening transparency, while transparency is necessary for effective stakeholder involvement. International and European legal requirements in environmental decision-making, radiation protection, nuclear safety and emergency preparedness and response call for increasing levels of transparency and stakeholder engagement. However, recent nuclear or radiological events demonstrate that transparency and engagement in practice are perceived differently by authorities, media and the public. Research conducted in this study by means of a questionnaire sent to authorities responsible for nuclear/radiological emergency management shows a range of challenges related to transparency during a nuclear or radiological emergency, e.g. fear of panic or timely and proper information. Few countries use the full potential of tools and methods for stakeholder engagement in emergency preparedness, although these may also contribute to improved transparency. Despite lessons learned to enhance transparency and stakeholder engagement in nuclear or radiological emergency management, there is room for improvement at a practical level and for finding a common understanding among stakeholders.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolay Lipskiy ◽  
James Tyson ◽  
Shauna Mettee Zarecki ◽  
Jacqueline Burkholder

ObjectiveThe purpose of this project is to demonstrate the progress in development of a standardized public health (PH) emergency preparedness and response data ontology (terminology) through collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Emergency Operations (DEO), and the Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) system.IntroductionThe U.S. Department of Homeland Security National Incident Management System (NIMS) establishes a common framework and common terminology that allows diverse incident management and support organizations to work together across a wide variety of functions and hazard scenarios1. Using common terminology helps avoid confusion and enhances interoperability, particularly in fast-moving public health (PH) emergency responses. In addition, common terminology allows diverse incident management and support organizations to work together across a wide variety of functions and scenarios1. LOINC is one of a suite of designated standards for the electronic exchange of public health and clinical information. Implementation of LOINC facilitates improvement of semantic interoperability, including unified terminology2. More than 68,100 registered users from 172 countries use LOINC to move interoperable data seamlessly between systems3. The CDC Division of Emergency Operations (DEO) leads development of standardized PH emergency preparedness and response terminology to improve effective and interoperable communications between national and international partners. Realizing the scale of LOINC support and implementation across the global public health arena, CDC DEO collaborates with LOINC to further enhance and harmonize the current PH emergency response terminology and to attain critical PH emergency management and preparedness and response requirements.MethodsDEO analyzed 87,863 LOINC terms that were included in LOINC version 2.64, released on 06/15/20183. Access to this LOINC version was obtained through the Regenstrief LOINC Mapping Assistant (RELMA). RELMA is a Windows-based LOINC utility developed by the Regenstrief Institute (Indiapolis, USA) for searching the LOINC database and mapping local codes to LOINC codes4. The relevance of LOINC terminology to PH emergency preparedness and response was assessed through evaluating existing LOINC terminology against terminology specified by the World Health Organization PH Emergency Operation Centers (EOC). The following functions were evaluated: 1) Managing and Commanding; 2) Operating; 3) Planning/Intelligence; 4) Logistics and 5) Finance/Administration5. LOINC terminology was also evaluated against the CDC PH EOC Minimum Data Set (MDS)6 that contains 315 standardized terms. Analysis of fully specified LOINC terms was conducted through assessment of such LOINC term parts (attributes) as the code, name (component), system, method and class. Recommendations of gaps and enhancements were coordinated with LOINC management for inclusion of the new terminology in the release of version 2.65 .ResultsA new LOINC method, “CDC.EOC”, is under development. Currently, the “emergency management incident” terminology presented by LOINC is limited by such characteristics as event type, event location and event name and requires amplification regarding to PH operations (i.e., communication, logistics etc.).As a result of this investigation, emergency management terms are now being classified according to the type of incident or event (i.e., hurricane, outbreak, etc.) under LOINC code 80394-0. Similarly laboratory and clinical terms are being classified under a provisional LOINC code (89724-9). Two panels were created: 1) The emergency medical systems from the National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) was added under the NEMSIS.Panel (n= 177 terms) and 2) the Data Elements for Emergency Departments Systems (DEEDS) panel (n = 152 terms) was added with two subpanels: Attach.ED and Panel.ED.Assessing existing LOINC taxonomy and codification, DEO is working with the LOINC management team on evaluating additional options for reconciliation the PH emergency preparedness and response common information exchange reference model and LOINC standard. This process aims to further improve semantic interoperability of PH emergency preparedness and response information.ConclusionsThe LOINC terminology standardization is essential for improving PH preparedness and response data exchange and semantic interoperability. Collaboration with the Regenstrief Institute (LOINC) allows CDC to meet the terminology needs of PH emergency management and defines new opportunities for reconciliation data exchange between NIMS partners. This collaborative effort incorporates critically needed PH emergency and preparedness terminology and hierarchical structure in the LOINC standard.References1.FEMA National Incident Management System. Third Edition, October 2017. At: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1508151197225-ced8c60378c3936adb92c1a3ee6f6564/FINAL_NIMS_2017.pdf2. US National Library of Medicine. Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC). At: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/loinc_main.html3. LOINC. The international standard for identifying health measurements, observations, and documents. At: https://loinc.org/4. RELMA-the Reginstrief Institute LOINC Mapping Assistant. At: https://loinc.org/relma/5.WHO. Framework for a Public Health Emergency Operations Centre. Interim document. November, 2015. At: http://www.who.int/ihr/publications/9789241565134_eng/en/6. CDC. Public Health Information Network Vocabulary Access and Distribution System (PHIN VADS). Minimum Data Set for PH Emergency Operations Center. At: https://phinvads.cdc.gov/vads/SearchVocab.action 


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (s1) ◽  
pp. s67-s67
Author(s):  
Lizz Reay ◽  
Penny Burns

Introduction:Disasters are part of the Australian landscape. Bushfires, floods, cyclones, and drought reoccurring consistently across the continent. Primary Health Networks (PHNs) and general practitioners (GPs) are scattered across Australia and are inevitably involved when disasters strike their local communities. Limited guidance exists to guide their systematic involvement within the broader disaster response system. In October 2013, large bushfires swept through the NSW Blue Mountains. The response was unusual in its inclusion of NSW general practice networks within the response system, most crucially the local (now) Nepean Blue Mountains Primary Health Network (NBMPHN).Methods:The lessons learned by GPs and NBMPHN during the fires highlighted the need for GP preparedness to improve recovery outcomes. This led to the development of a living discussion document “Emergency management: the role of the GP,” created with input from the various GP groups. More recently, a PHN emergency preparedness guide aimed at strengthening communication and formalizing the role of the PHNs and GPs before, during, and after a natural disaster.Results:Clarity and implementation of a process for disaster preparedness have enabled a more proactive and coordinated approach to local emergency management with a distinct role for both the PHN and local GPs when responding to a natural disaster.Discussion:This presentation discusses lessons learned and the preparedness strategy now in place in the Nepean Blue Mountains PHN region, and launches the emergency preparedness guide that can be used and adapted by GPs and other PHNs across Australia.


2018 ◽  
Vol 229 ◽  
pp. 01017
Author(s):  
Reno Alamsyah

A study has been carried out to enhance Indonesian emergency management system for nuclear emergency preparedness and response. The study is very important considering that Indonesia is a nuclear embarking country. The descriptive-analytic method is used to evaluate the current regulatory infrastructure against relevant international standards and conventions. Then, the results of international peer reviews to the system performed in 2015 and 2016 are also discussed. Finally, lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident are analysed as well. The study concluded that Indonesia has its commitment to developing the national emergency preparedness and response system. Furthermore, there are some areas for improvements. Among others, Indonesia needs to harmonized its Laws and fully adapt relevant international standards and conventions. The system should be the priority to be established using an integrated all-hazard approach, which requires leadership and coordination role of the national agency for disaster management. In the light of the Fukushima accident, it was identified that the system should also reflect severe accident scenario, which requires: A wide range of documentation that is to be developed, coordinated and harmonized; a comprehensive justified well-informed decision-making system; competency building scheme; and that all of these have to continually be reviewed and improved.


2020 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. S157-S162 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Zeleznik ◽  
L. Benighaus ◽  
D. Mitrakos ◽  
V. Tafili ◽  
T. Duranova ◽  
...  

This paper reports on the research of mental models of uncertainties management in an emergency situation which was carried out in the framework of the European CONFIDENCE (COping with uNcertainties For Improved modelling and DEcision making in Nuclear emergenCiEs) Project. The methodology included the mapping of mental models among several emergency preparedness and response experts and then performing interviews based on structured protocol with lay people in five countries: Germany, Greece, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain. The aim of these investigations was to trace the concepts and understandings of emergency preparedness and response and to identify possible gaps between experts and lay people. The article presents the main results of this research and suggestions for the improvement of EP & R planning.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document