Disaster Management in Rural and Remote Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Objective: This scoping review aims to map the roles of rural and remote primary health care professionals (PHCPs) during disasters. Introduction: Disasters can have catastrophic impacts on society and are broadly classified into natural events, man-made incidents, or a mixture of both. The PHCPs working in rural and remote communities face additional challenges when dealing with disasters and have significant roles during the Prevention, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (PPRR) stages of disaster management. Methods: A Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology was utilized, and the search was conducted over seven electronic databases according to a priori protocol. Results: Forty-one papers were included and sixty-one roles were identified across the four stages of disaster management. The majority of disasters described within the literature were natural events and pandemics. Before a disaster occurs, PHCPs can build individual resilience through education. As recognized and respected leaders within their community, PHCPs are invaluable in assisting with disaster preparedness through being involved in organizations’ planning policies and contributing to natural disaster and pandemic surveillance. Key roles during the response stage include accommodating patient surge, triage, maintaining the health of the remaining population, instituting infection control, and ensuring a team-based approach to mental health care during the disaster. In the aftermath and recovery stage, rural and remote PHCPs provide long-term follow up, assisting patients in accessing post-disaster support including delivery of mental health care. Conclusion: Rural and remote PHCPs play significant roles within their community throughout the continuum of disaster management. As a consequence of their flexible scope of practice, PHCPs are well-placed to be involved during all stages of disaster, from building of community resilience and contributing to early alert of pandemics, to participating in the direct response when a disaster occurs and leading the way to recovery.

Differences between Rural and Urban Practices in the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Outcomes from the PRICOV-19 Study in 38 Countries

“…Additionally, populations in rural and remote areas may be more vulnerable to the consequences of extreme events due to geographical isolation, less-developed infrastructure, less epidemiological surveillance capacity and less favorable social determinants of health [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. We know that in many countries GPs in rural areas already have a heavier workload than their counterparts in semi-urban and urban areas [ 23 , 24 ].…”

Resilience of the primary health care system – German primary care practitioners’ perspectives during the early COVID-19 pandemic

“…Relating to data from the plateau of summer 2020 and the second wave of COVID-19 Germany had fewer COVID-19 deaths than the European average whereas when compared internationally with other high-income countries, it ranges in the middle [1,4,5]. Primary care is a part of the health care system that is a relevant pillar in the management of medical crises, including the current COVID-19 pandemic [6][7][8][9][10]. The COVID-19 pandemic has demanded a rapid response from primary care with interventions in the health care system that are the subject of diverse qualitative and quantitative studies across the globe [7,[11][12][13][14][15][16].…”

Mental Health Response to Disasters: Is There a Role for a Primary Care-Based Clinician?

“…The descriptive data from this study reinforce and emphasize the need for GP skills in screening and identifying risk factors to address their patients' unmet mental health needs and the increased risk of adverse psychosocial outcomes following a traumatic experience. 44,45 Interestingly, the patient group did not report a history of mental illness diagnosed by a clinician. A family history of substance use was reported by 70% of the group, and 50% described symptoms consistent with a history of a complicated bereavement reaction.…”