BackgroundAlthough training and education have long been accepted as integral to disaster preparedness, many currently taught practices are neither evidence-based nor standardized. The need for effective evidence-based disaster training of healthcare staff at all levels, including the development of standards and guidelines for training in the multi-disciplinary health response to major events, has been designated by the disaster response community as a high priority. We describe the application of systematic evidence-based consensus building methods to derive educational competencies and objectives in criteria-based preparedness and response relevant to all hospital healthcare workers.MethodsThe conceptual development of cross-cutting competencies incorporated current evidence through a systematic consensus building process with the following steps: (1) review of peer-reviewed literature on relevant content areas and educational theory; (2) structured review of existing competencies, national level courses and published training objectives; (3) synthesis of new cross-cutting competencies; (4) expert panel review; (5) refinement of new competencies and; (6) development of testable terminal objectives for each competency using similar processes covering requisite knowledge, attitudes, and skills.ResultsSeven cross-cutting competencies were developed: (1) Recognize a potential critical event and implement initial actions; (2) Apply the principles of critical event management; (3) Demonstrate critical event safety principles; (4) Understand the institutional emergency operations plan; (5) Demonstrate effective critical event communications; (6) Understand the incident command system and your role in it; (7) Demonstrate the knowledge and skills needed to fulfill your role during a critical event. For each of the cross-cutting competencies, comprehensive terminal objectives are described.ConclusionCross-cutting competencies and objectives developed through a systematic evidence-based consensus building approach may serve as a foundation for future hospital healthcare worker training and education in disaster preparedness and response.

Mass-casualty triage has developed from a wartime necessity to a civilian tool to ensure that constrained medical resources are directed at achieving the greatest good for the most number of people. Several primary and secondary triage tools have been developed, including Simple Treatment and Rapid Transport (START), JumpSTART, Care Flight Triage, Triage Sieve, Sacco Triage Method, Secondary Assessment of Victim Endpoint (SAVE), and Pediatric Triage Tape. Evidence to support the use of one triage algorithm over another is limited, and the development of effective triage protocols is an important research priority. The most widely recognized mass-casualty triage algorithms in use today are not evidence-based, and no studies directly address these issues in the mass-casualty setting. Furthermore, no studies have evaluated existing mass-casualty triage algorithms regarding ease of use, reliability, and validity when biological, chemical, or radiological agents are introduced. Currently, the lack of a standardized mass-casualty triage system that is well validated, reliable, and uniformly accepted, remains an important gap. Future research directed at triage is recognized as a necessity, and the development of a practical, universal, triage algorithm that incorporates requirements for decontamination or special precautions for infectious agents would facilitate a more organized mass-casualty medical response.

The disposition classification system allows conceptual classification of patients for suitable disposition, including those deemed safe for early discharge home during surges in demand. Clinical criteria allowing real-time categorisation of patients are awaited.

Background: Various organizations and universities have developed competencies for health professionals and other emergency responders. Little effort has been devoted to the integration of these competencies across health specialties and professions. The American Medical Association Center for Public Health Preparedness and Disaster Response convened an expert working group (EWG) to review extant competencies and achieve consensus on an educational framework and competency set from which educators could devise learning objectives and curricula tailored to fit the needs of all health professionals in a disaster. Methods: The EWG conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed published literature. In addition, after-action reports from Hurricane Katrina and relevant publications recommended by EWG members and other subject matter experts were reviewed for congruencies and gaps. Consensus was ensured through a 3-stage Delphi process. Results: The EWG process developed a new educational framework for disaster medicine and public health preparedness based on consensus identification of 7 core learning domains, 19 core competencies, and 73 specific competencies targeted at 3 broad health personnel categories. Conclusions: The competencies can be applied to a wide range of health professionals who are expected to perform at different levels (informed worker/student, practitioner, leader) according to experience, professional role, level of education, or job function. Although these competencies strongly reflect lessons learned following the health system response to Hurricane Katrina, it must be understood that preparedness is a process, and that these competencies must be reviewed continually and refined over time. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:57-68)

ABSTRACTEffective preparedness, response, and recovery from disasters require a well-planned, integrated effort with experienced professionals who can apply specialized knowledge and skills in critical situations. While some professionals are trained for this, others may lack the critical knowledge and experience needed to effectively perform under stressful disaster conditions. A set of clear, concise, and precise training standards that may be used to ensure workforce competency in such situations has been developed. The competency set has been defined by a broad and diverse set of leaders in the field and like-minded professionals through a series of Web-based surveys and expert working group meetings. The results may provide a useful starting point for delineating expected competency levels of health professionals in disaster medicine and public health.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:44–52)

BackgroundHospital-based providers' willingness to report to work during an influenza pandemic is a critical yet under-studied phenomenon. Witte's Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) has been shown to be useful for understanding adaptive behavior of public health workers to an unknown risk, and thus offers a framework for examining scenario-specific willingness to respond among hospital staff.MethodsWe administered an anonymous online EPPM-based survey about attitudes/beliefs toward emergency response, to all 18,612 employees of the Johns Hopkins Hospital from January to March 2009. Surveys were completed by 3426 employees (18.4%), approximately one third of whom were health professionals.ResultsDemographic and professional distribution of respondents was similar to all hospital staff. Overall, more than one-in-four (28%) hospital workers indicated they were not willing to respond to an influenza pandemic scenario if asked but not required to do so. Only an additional 10% were willing if required. One-third (32%) of participants reported they would be unwilling to respond in the event of a more severe pandemic influenza scenario. These response rates were consistent across different departments, and were one-third lower among nurses as compared with physicians. Respondents who were hesitant to agree to work additional hours when required were 17 times less likely to respond during a pandemic if asked. Sixty percent of the workers perceived their peers as likely to report to work in such an emergency, and were ten times more likely than others to do so themselves. Hospital employees with a perception of high efficacy had 5.8 times higher declared rates of willingness to respond to an influenza pandemic.ConclusionsSignificant gaps exist in hospital workers' willingness to respond, and the EPPM is a useful framework to assess these gaps. Several attitudinal indicators can help to identify hospital employees unlikely to respond. The findings point to certain hospital-based communication and training strategies to boost employees' response willingness, including promoting pre-event plans for home-based dependents; ensuring adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, vaccines and antiviral drugs for all hospital employees; and establishing a subjective norm of awareness and preparedness.

No abstract

Introduction:Recently, mass-casualty incident (MCI) preparedness and training has received increasing attention at the hospital level.Objectives:To review the existing evidence on the effectiveness of disaster drills, technology-based interventions and tabletop exercises in training hospital staff to respond to an MCI.Methods:A systematic, evidence-based process was conducted incorporating expert panel input and a literature review with the key terms: “mass casualty”, “disaster”, “disaster planning”, and “drill”. Paired investigators reviewed citation abstracts to identify articles that included evaluation of disaster training for hospital staff. Data were abstracted from the studies (e.g., MCI type, training intervention, staff targeted, objectives, evaluation methods, and results). Study quality was reviewed using standardized criteria.Results:Of 243 potentially relevant citations, twenty-one met the defined criteria. Studies varied in terms of targeted staff, learning objectives, outcomes, and evaluation methods. Most were characterized by significant limitations in design and evaluation methods. Seventeen addressed the effectiveness of disaster drills in training hospital staff in responding to an MCI, four addressed technology-based interventions, and none addressed tabletop exercises. The existing evidence suggests that hospital disaster drills are effective in allowing hospital employees to become familiar with disaster procedures, identify problems in different components of response (e.g., incident command, communications, triage, patient flow, materials and resources, and security) and provide the opportunity to apply lessons learned to disaster response. The strength of evidence on other training methods is insufficient to draw valid recommendations.Conclusions:Current evidence on the effectiveness of MCI training for hospital staff is limited. A number of studies suggest that disaster drills can be effective in training hospital staff. However, more attention should be directed to evaluating the effectiveness of disaster training activities in a scientifically rigorous manner.