Federal Initiative Increases Community Preparedness For Public Health Emergencies

Nelson, Christopher; Willis, Henry H.; Chan, Edward W.; Shelton, Shoshana R.; Parker, Andrew M.

doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0189

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…aerosolized anthrax), response models are grounded in concrete real-world incidents, making it easier to conceptualize the likely functional and structural aspects of a response. This allows for the development of detailed response protocols, which can be used to guide the training of staff and purchase of resources needed to test, implement, and improve these plans [11]. At the same time, the conceptual models are general enough that insights and skills gained from planning for one threat can be expected to be applicable, although not identical, to other hazards with a similar profile, increasing the efficiency of planning.…”

Section: Using Conceptual Models Of Response To Improve Preparednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…exercises or drills), with a primary focus on bioterrorism or pandemic influenza [3]. By relying on an evidence base that draws from a narrow set of threats, we run the risk of overemphasizing the capabilities and resources required for those incidents while neglecting those that may be essential in other scenarios [11]. Furthermore, simulated emergencies introduce artificialities that do not reflect real-world response situations [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public Health Response Systems In-Action: Learning from Local Health Departments’ Experiences with Acute and Emergency Incidents

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of their core mission, public health agencies attend to a wide range of disease and health threats, including those that require routine, acute, and emergency responses. While each incident is unique, the number and type of response activities are finite; therefore, through comparative analysis, we can learn about commonalities in the response patterns that could improve predictions and expectations regarding the resources and capabilities required to respond to future acute events. In this study, we interviewed representatives from more than 120 local health departments regarding their recent experiences with real-world acute public health incidents, such as infectious disease outbreaks, severe weather events, chemical spills, and bioterrorism threats. We collected highly structured data on key aspects of the incident and the public health response, particularly focusing on the public health activities initiated and community partners engaged in the response efforts. As a result, we are able to make comparisons across event types, create response profiles, and identify functional and structural response patterns that have import for future public health preparedness and response. Our study contributes to clarifying the complexity of public health response systems and our analysis reveals the ways in which these systems are adaptive to the character of the threat, resulting in differential activation of functions and partners based on the type of incident. Continued and rigorous examination of the experiences of health departments throughout the nation will refine our very understanding of what the public health response system is, will enable the identification of organizational and event inputs to performance, and will allow for the construction of rich, relevant, and practical models of response operations that can be employed to strengthen public health systems.

show abstract

Section: Using Conceptual Models Of Response To Improve Preparednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Health Response Systems In-Action: Learning from Local Health Departments’ Experiences with Acute and Emergency Incidents

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various dispensing modalities have been explored over the past decade to assure MCMs are quickly made available to exposed populations. Potential dispensing modalities may include home delivery of MCMs through the United States Postal Service, 1 preevent placement of MCMs to central venues in communities, 1 predeployment of MCMs to first responders and individual homes in the form of MedKits, 5 and the use of points of dispensing (PODs). Most jurisdictions rely primarily on an extensive network of PODs for mass MCM dispensing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are US Jurisdictions Prepared to Dispense Medical Countermeasures Through Open Points of Dispensing? Findings from a National Study

RebmannTerri¹,

Loux²,

SwickZachary³

et al. 2015

Health Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communities will rely on open points of dispensing (PODs) for mass dispensing of medical countermeasures following a bioterrorism attack or a pandemic. US Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) open POD preparedness is assessed using the Technical Assistance Review (TAR) but focuses on oral prophylaxis dispensing; mass vaccination readiness is not well measured. Non-CRI preparedness had not been studied. In 2013 an online questionnaire was sent to all 456 CRIs and a random sample of 500 non-CRIs to measure open POD preparedness and exercise participation. Hierarchical linear regression was used to describe factors associated with higher POD preparedness and exercise participation scores. In total, 257 subjects participated, for a 41% response rate. Almost all open PODs have existing written plans and/or a layout for each site (93.4%, n=240, and 87.0%, n=220). Only half (46.7%, n=120) have an alternative dispensing modality in place, and even fewer (42.6%, n=104) report having adequate staffing. Determinants of open POD preparedness were perceived preparedness, participation in more POD exercises, and more closed POD coverage. Most jurisdictions conducted a full-scale exercise and a staff notification drill (83.7%, n=215 for both). Fewer than half (40.5%, n=104) have conducted a vaccination clinic exercise. Determinants of increased POD exercises were perceived preparedness, years of work experience, community type (nontribal), and larger population. Because successful open POD deployment is critical, jurisdictions need to plan for mass vaccination, use of alternative dispensing modalities, and recruitment strategies to increase POD staffing.

show abstract

“…1 The CRI provides funding to state health departments across the nation, including 72 of the major metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), accounting for 57% of the US population. 2 This funding is intended to enhance CRI jurisdictions' ability to rapidly dispense medical countermeasures to their citizens.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…POD preparedness, as defined by the CDC's technical assistance review, was measured twice, 1 year apart in 2004 and 2005, and was found to be increasing, though only CRI sites were assessed. 2 In 2006, Connecticut POD workers' competence and training needs were assessed; 15 researchers found that a third of them needed additional training in at least 5 areas in order to perform the duties outlined on their job action sheets, regardless of whether they were paid or volunteer staff. As an alternative to measuring POD functioning or preparedness through modeling or exercises, some researchers have examined patient satisfaction with their experience at PODs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A National Study Examining Closed Points of Dispensing (PODs): Existence, Preparedness, Exercise Participation, and Training Provided

Rebmann¹,

Loux²,

Swick³

et al. 2014

Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, an

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using open points of dispensing (PODs) and alternative modalities, such as closed PODs, for mass dispensing of medical countermeasures. However, closed POD existence has not been assessed. In 2013 we sent an online questionnaire to US Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) and non-CRI public health disaster planners. Chi-square tests were used to determine differences between CRIs and non-CRIs when comparing having at least 1 closed POD, and to compare having a closed POD and perceived mass dispensing preparedness. A total of 301 disaster planners participated. Almost all (89.3%, n=218) jurisdictions have considered establishing a closed POD, and three-quarters (74.2%, n=181) currently have at least one. CRIs were more likely than non-CRIs to have a closed POD (85.0% vs 58.5%, X(2)=21.3, p<.001). Those with 1 or more closed PODs were more likely to believe their jurisdiction could distribute medical countermeasures within 48 hours compared to those without a closed POD (78.5% vs 21.5%; X(2)=10.8, p=.001). Half had a written plan and/or written standing orders (59.1% and 52.5%, respectively). Almost half (42%, n=72) have done no preevent training for POD staff in the past 2 years; almost 20% (18%, n=32) do not plan to offer any just-in-time training. Nearly 40% (n=70) have conducted no exercises in the past year. Closed PODs contribute to community preparedness; their establishment should be followed by development of written plans, worker training, and exercises.

show abstract

Federal Initiative Increases Community Preparedness For Public Health Emergencies

Cited by 10 publications

References 7 publications

Public Health Response Systems In-Action: Learning from Local Health Departments’ Experiences with Acute and Emergency Incidents

Public Health Response Systems In-Action: Learning from Local Health Departments’ Experiences with Acute and Emergency Incidents

Are US Jurisdictions Prepared to Dispense Medical Countermeasures Through Open Points of Dispensing? Findings from a National Study

A National Study Examining Closed Points of Dispensing (PODs): Existence, Preparedness, Exercise Participation, and Training Provided

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About