Background: Hospital emergency department (ED) clinicians will play a crucial role in responding to any terrorist incident involving radioactive materials. To date, however, there has been a paucity of research focusing specifically on ED clinicians’ perspectives regarding this threat.

Methods: At the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham conducted a series of 10 focus groups (total participants, 77) with ED physicians and nurses at hospitals in 3 US regions. Participants considered a hypothetical “dirty bomb” scenario and discussed their perceptions, concerns, information needs, preferred information sources, and views of current guidance and informational materials.

Results: Study participants consistently expressed the view that neither EDs nor hospital facilities are sufficiently prepared for a terrorist event involving radioactive materials. Key clinician concerns included the possibility of the hospital being overwhelmed, safety of loved ones, potential staffing problems, readiness problems, and contamination and self-protection. Participants also expressed a need for additional information, strongly disagreed with aspects of current response guidance, and in some cases indicated they would not carry out current protocols.

Conclusions: This study is the first to examine the views, perceptions, and information needs of hospital ED clinicians regarding radiological terrorism. As such, the findings may be useful in informing current and future efforts to improve hospital preparedness. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:174–184)

The prospect of a severe influenza pandemic poses a daunting public health threat to hospitals and the public they serve. The event of a severe influenza pandemic will put hospitals under extreme stress; only so many beds, ventilators, nurses, and physicians will be available, and it is likely that more patients will require medical attention than can be completely treated. Triage is the process of sorting patients in a time of crisis to determine who receives what level of medical attention. How will hospitals sort patients to determine priority for treatment? What criteria will be used? Who will develop these criteria? This article formulates an answer to these questions by constructing a conceptual framework for anticipating and responding to the ethical issues raised by triage in the event of a severe influenza pandemic. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:114–118)

In many countries, traditional medical planning for disasters developed largely in response to battlefield and multiple casualty incidents, generally involving corporal injuries. The mass evacuation of a metropolitan population in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina evolved into life-and-death triage scenarios involving thousands of patients with nontraumatic illnesses and special medical needs. Although unprecedented in the United States, triage management needs for this disaster were similar to other large-scale public health emergencies, both natural and human-generated, that occurred globally in the past half-century. The need for alternative triage-management processes similar to the methodologies of other global mass public health emergencies is illustrated through the experience of disaster medical assistance teams in the first 3 days following Katrina's landfall. The immediate establishment of disaster-specific, consensus-based, public health emergency–related triage protocols—developed with ethical and legal expertise and a renewed focus on multidimensional, multifactorial matrix decision-making processes—is strongly recommended. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S40–S44)

Background: In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage to parts of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, causing many people, including vulnerable older adults, to evacuate to safe surroundings. Approximately 23,000 evacuees—many of them 65 years old or older, frail, and lacking family to advocate for their care—arrived at the Reliant Astrodome Complex in Houston, Texas. There was no method for assessing the immediate and long-term needs of this vulnerable population.

Methods: A 13-item rapid needs assessment tool was piloted on 228 evacuees 65 years old and older by the Seniors Without Families Team (SWiFT), to test the feasibility of triaging vulnerable older adults with medical and mental health needs, financial needs, and/or social needs.

Results: The average age of the individuals triaged was 66.1 ± 12.72 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) years. Of these, 68% were triaged for medical and or mental health needs, 18% were triaged for financial assistance, and 4% were triaged for social assistance. More than half of the SWiFT-triaged older adults reported having hypertension.

Conclusions: The SWiFT tool is a feasible approach for triaging vulnerable older adults and provides a rapid determination of the level of need or assistance necessary for vulnerable older people during disasters. The tool was only piloted, thus further testing to determine reliability and validity is necessary. Potentially important implications for using such a tool and suggestions for preparing for and responding to disaster situations in which vulnerable older adults are involved are provided. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S45–S50)

Data from existing administrative databases and ongoing surveys or surveillance methods may prove indispensable after mass traumas as a way of providing information that may be useful to emergency planners and practitioners. The analytic approach, however, may affect exposure prevalence estimates and measures of association. We compare Bayesian hierarchical modeling methods to standard survey analytic techniques for survey data collected in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Estimates for the prevalence of exposure to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, varied by the method chosen. Bayesian hierarchical modeling returned the lowest estimate for exposure prevalence with a credible interval spanning nearly 3 times the range of the confidence intervals (CIs) associated with both unadjusted and survey procedures. Bayesian hierarchical modeling also returned a smaller point estimate for measures of association, although in this instance the credible interval was tighter than that obtained through survey procedures. Bayesian approaches allow a consideration of preexisting assumptions about survey data, and may offer potential advantages, particularly in the uncertain environment of postterrorism and disaster settings. Additional comparative analyses of existing data are necessary to guide our ability to use these techniques in future incidents. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:119–126)

The lack of frequent real-world opportunities to study preparedness for large-scale public health emergencies has hindered the development of an evidence base to support best practices, performance measures, standards, and other tools needed to assess and improve the nation’s multibillion dollar investment in public health preparedness. In this article, we argue that initial funding priorities for public health systems research on preparedness should focus on using engineering-style methods to identify core preparedness processes, developing novel data sources and measures based on smaller-scale proxy events, and developing performance improvement approaches to support the translation of research into practice within the wide variety of public health systems found in the nation. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:247–250)

Under the current US Department of Health and Human Services regulatory and ethical system for research involving human subjects, research is defined in terms of several key concepts: intent, systematic investigation, and generalizability. If an investigator engages in a systematic investigation designed or intended to contribute to generalizable knowledge, then he or she is engaged in research. If that research involves living individuals and the investigator will either interact or intervene with people or obtain their identifiable personal information, then the research must be prospectively reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB), a federally mandated committee that ensures the ethical and regulatory appropriateness of proposed research. In public health institutions, and especially at state departments of health, this definition of research may prove vexing for determining when particular public health activities must be reviewed by IRBs. This article outlines several reasons for such vexation and 2 key responses from major public health stakeholders. In the current climate of public health preparedness initiatives at state health departments for disasters and bioterrorism, how research is defined vis-à-vis public health interventions may add even more confusion to preparedness initiatives and pose difficulties in determining when IRB review and the added protections it affords are appropriate. This article suggests several practical ways to avoid confusion and attempts to strike a balance between the need for expeditious approvals of research-based responses to public health disasters and to ensure proper protections for human subjects at state health departments. It is hoped that these suggestions can assist not only state health departments but also academically based researchers who either collaborate with those departments or whose research will need to be reviewed by their IRBs. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:185–191)

Current disaster taxonomy describes diversity, distinguishing characteristics, and common relations in disaster event classifications. The impact of compromised public health infrastructure and systems on health consequences defines and greatly influences the manner in which disasters are observed, planned for, and managed, especially those that are geographically widespread, population dense, and prolonged. What may first result in direct injuries and death may rapidly change to excess indirect illness and subsequent death as essential public health resources are destroyed, deteriorate, or are systematically denied to vulnerable populations. Public health and public health infrastructure and systems in developed and developing countries must be seen as strategic and security issues that deserve international public health resource monitoring attention from disaster managers, urban planners, the global humanitarian community, World Health Organization authorities, and participating parties to war and conflict. We posit here that disaster frameworks be reformed to emphasize and clarify the relation of public health emergencies and modern disasters. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:192–199)

Facility-based health care personnel often lack emergency management training and experience, making it a challenge to efficiently assess evolving incidents and rapidly mobilize appropriate resources. We propose the CO-S-TR model, a simple conceptual tool for hospital incident command personnel to prioritize initial incident actions to adequately address key components of surge capacity. There are 3 major categories in the tool, each with 4 subelements. “CO” stands for command, control, communications, and coordination and ensures that an incident management structure is implemented. “S” considers the logistical requirements for staff, stuff, space, and special (event-specific) considerations. “TR” comprises tracking, triage, treatment, and transportation: basic patient care and patient movement functions. This comprehensive yet simple approach is designed to be implemented in the immediate aftermath of an incident, and complements the incident command system by aiding effective incident assessment and surge capacity responses at the health care facility level. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S51–S57)

Background: In a public health emergency, many more patients could require mechanical ventilators than can be accommodated.

Methods: To plan for such a crisis, the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law convened a workgroup to develop ethical and clinical guidelines for ventilator triage.

Results: The workgroup crafted an ethical framework including the following components: duty to care, duty to steward resources, duty to plan, distributive justice, and transparency. Incorporating the ethical framework, the clinical guidelines propose both withholding and withdrawing ventilators from patients with the highest probability of mortality to benefit patients with the highest likelihood of survival. Triage scores derive from the sepsis-related organ failure assessment system, which assigns points based on function in 6 basic medical domains. Triage may not be implemented by a facility without clear permission from public health authorities.

Conclusions: New York State released the draft guidelines for public comment, allowing for revision to reflect both community values and medical innovation. This ventilator triage system represents a radical shift from ordinary standards of care, and may serve as a model for allocating other scarce resources in disasters. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:20–26)

Public health agencies simply do not have enough trained staff or volunteers to effectively respond to a large-scale disaster. Training volunteers “off the street” will be crucial—but time consuming—in a public health emergency. A centralized volunteer staging and training area can help to efficiently register, credential, and conduct just-in-time training of volunteers, while reducing stress, confusion, traffic congestion, and security issues at various mass dispensing clinics. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:127–129)

Background: Coordination and communication among community partners—including health departments, emergency management agencies, and hospitals—are essential for effective pandemic influenza planning and response. As the nation’s largest integrated health care system, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could be a key component of community planning.

Purpose: To identify issues relevant to VA–community pandemic influenza preparedness.

Methods: As part of a VA–community planning process, we developed and pilot-tested a series of tabletop exercises for use throughout the VA system. These included exercises for facilities, regions (Veterans Integrated Service Networks), and the VA Central Office. In each, VA and community participants, including representatives from local health care facilities and public health agencies, were presented with a 3-step scenario about an unfolding pandemic and were required to discuss issues and make decisions about how the situation would be handled. We report the lessons learned from these pilot tests.

Results: Existing communication and coordination for pandemic influenza between VA health care system representatives and local and regional emergency planners are limited. Areas identified that would benefit from better collaborative planning include response coordination, resource sharing, uneven resource distribution, surge capacity, standards of care, workforce policies, and communication with the public.

Conclusions: The VA health system and communities throughout the United States have limited understanding of one another’s plans and needs in the event of a pandemic. Proactive joint VA–community planning and coordination—including exercises, followed by deliberate actions to address the issues that arise—will likely improve pandemic influenza preparedness and will be mutually beneficial. Most of the issues identified are not unique to VA, but are applicable to all integrated care systems. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:251–257)

Background: Disaster preparations usually focus on preventing injury and infectious disease. However, people with chronic disease and related conditions (CDRCs), including obstetric/gynecological conditions, may be vulnerable to disruptions caused by disasters.

Methods: We used surveillance data collected after Hurricane Katrina to characterize the burden of visits for CDRCs at emergency treatment facilities (eg, hospitals, disaster medical assistance teams, military aid stations). In 6 parishes in and around New Orleans, health care providers at 29 emergency treatment facilities completed a standardized questionnaire for injury and illness surveillance from September 8 through October 22, 2005.

Results: Of 21,673 health care visits, 58.0% were for illness (24.3% CDRCs, 75.7% non-CDRCs), 29.1% for injury, 7.2% for medication refills, and 5.7% for routine or follow-up care. The proportion of visits for CDRCs increased with age. Among men presenting with CDRCs, the most common illnesses were cardiovascular disease (36.8%), chronic lower-respiratory disease (12.3%), and diabetes/glucose abnormalities (7.7%). Among women presenting with CDRCs, the most common were cardiovascular disease (29.2%), obstetric/gynecological conditions (18.2%), and chronic lower-respiratory disease (12.0%). Subsequent hospitalization occurred among 28.7% of people presenting with CDRCs versus 10.9% of those with non-CDRCs and 3.8% of those with injury.

Conclusions: Our data illustrate the importance of including CDRCs as a part of emergency response planning. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:27–32)