Article

Do pandemic preparedness planning systems ignore critical community- and local-level operational challenges?

Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University, USA.
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (Impact Factor: 1.14). 03/2010; 4(1):24-9. DOI: 10.1097/DMP.0b013e3181cb4193
Source: PubMed

Full-text

Available from: Frederick M Burkle, Nov 01, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
82 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Planning for mass critical care in resource poor or constrained settings (developing or undeveloped countries) has been largely ignored despite their large populations that are prone to suffer disproportionately from natural disasters. Addressing mass critical care in these settings has the potential to help vast numbers of people and also to inform planning for better-resourced areas. Methodology:The Resource Poor Settings panel developed 5 key question domains; defining the term resource poor and using the traditional phases of disaster (mitigation/preparedness/response/recovery), literature searches were conducted to identify evidence on which to answer the key questions in these areas. Given a lack of data upon which to develop evidenced-based recommendations, expert-opinion suggestions were developed and consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi process. Results:The 5 key questions were then separated as follows: definition, infrastructure and capacity building, resources, response, and reconstitution/recovery of host nation critical care capabilities and research. Addressing these questions led the panel to offer 33 suggestions. Due to the large number of suggestions the results have been separated into two sections, part I: Infrastructure/Capacity in this manuscript, and part II, Response/Recovery/Research in the accompanying manuscript. Conclusions:Lack of, or presence of, rudimentary Intensive Care Unit resources and limited capacity to enhance services further challenge resource poor and constrained settings. Hence, capacity building entails preventative strategies and strengthening of primary health services. Assistance from other countries and organizations is needed to mount a surge response. Moreover, planning should include when to disengage and how the host nation can provide capacity beyond the mass casualty care event.
    Chest 08/2014; 146(4). DOI:10.1378/chest.14-0744 · 7.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Planning for mass critical care in resource-poor and constrained settings has been largely ignored, despite large, densely crowded populations who are prone to suffer disproportionately from natural disasters. As a result, disaster response has been suboptimal and in many instances hampered by lack of planning, education and training, information, and communication. METHODS: The Resource-Poor Settings panel developed five key question domains; defining the term resource poor and using the traditional phases of the disaster cycle (mitigation/preparedness/response/recovery). Literature searches were conducted to identify evidence to answer the key questions in these areas. Given a lack of data on which to develop evidence-based recommendations, expert-opinion suggestions were developed, and consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The five key questions were as follows: definition, capacity building and mitigation, what resources can we bring to bear to assist/surge, response, and reconstitution and recovery of host nation critical care capabilities. Addressing these led the panel to off er 33 suggestions. Because of the large number of suggestions, the results have been separated into two sections: part I, Infrastructure/Capacity in the accompanying article, and part II, Response/Recovery/Research in this article. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of rudimentary ICU resources and capacity to enhance services plagues resource-poor or constrained settings. Capacity building therefore entails preventative strategies and strengthening of primary health services. Assistance from other countries and organizations is oft en needed to mount a surge response. Moreover, the disengagement of these responding groups and host country recovery require active planning. Future improvements in all phases require active research activities. CHEST 2014; 146 (4_Suppl): e168S-e177S
    Chest 08/2014; 146(4). DOI:10.1378/chest.14-0745 · 7.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sustainable approaches to crises, especially non-trauma-related public health emergencies, are severely lacking. At present, the Ebola crisis is defining the operational public health skill sets for infectious disease epidemics that are not widely known or appreciated. Indigenous and foreign medical teams will need to adapt to build competency-based curriculum and standards of care for the future that concentrate on public health emergencies. Only by adjusting and adapting specific operational public health skill sets to resource poor environments will it be possible to provide sustainable prevention and preparedness initiatives that work well across cultures and borders.(Diaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;0:1-3).
    Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 10/2014; DOI:10.1017/dmp.2014.95 · 1.14 Impact Factor