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
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective We developed and validated a user-centered information system to support the local planning of public health continuity of operations for the Community Health Services Division, Public Health - Seattle & King County, Washington.Methods The Continuity of Operations Data Analysis (CODA) system was designed as a prototype developed using requirements identified through participatory design. CODA uses open-source software that links personnel contact and licensing information with needed skills and clinic locations for 821 employees at 14 public health clinics in Seattle and King County. Using a web-based interface, CODA can visualize locations of personnel in relationship to clinics to assist clinic managers in allocating public health personnel and resources under dynamic conditions.Results Based on user input, the CODA prototype was designed as a low-cost, user-friendly system to inventory and manage public health resources. In emergency conditions, the system can run on a stand-alone battery-powered laptop computer. A formative evaluation by managers of multiple public health centers confirmed the prototype design's usefulness. Emergency management administrators also provided positive feedback about the system during a separate demonstration.Conclusions Validation of the CODA information design prototype by public health managers and emergency management administrators demonstrates the potential usefulness of building a resource management system using open-source technologies and participatory design principles.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;0:1–7)Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 04/2013; 7(02). · 1.14 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Previous simulation studies suggest that temporary pediatric mass critical care approaches would accommodate plausible hypothetical sudden-impact public health emergencies. However, the utility of sustained pediatric mass critical care responses in prolonged pandemics has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to compare the ability of a typical region to serve pediatric intensive care unit needs in hypothetical pandemics, with and without mass critical care responses sufficient to triple usual pediatric intensive care unit capacity. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: The Monte Carlo simulation method was used to model responses to hypothetical pandemics on the basis of national historical evidence regarding pediatric intensive care unit admission and length of stay in pandemic and nonpandemic circumstances. Assuming all ages are affected equally, federal guidelines call for plans to serve moderate and severe pandemics requiring pediatric intensive care unit care for 457 and 5,277 infants and children per million of the population, respectively. A moderate pandemic would exceed ordinary surge capacity on 13% of pandemic season days but would always be accommodated by mass critical care approaches. In a severe pandemic, ordinary surge methods would accommodate all the patients on only 32% of pandemic season days and would accommodate 39% of needed patient days. Mass critical care approaches would accommodate all the patients on 82% of the days and would accommodate 64% of all patient days. Mass critical care approaches would be essential to extend care to the majority of infants and children in a severe pandemic. However, some patients needing critical care still could not be accommodated, requiring consideration of rationing.Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 10/2010; 13(1):e1-4. · 2.35 Impact Factor
- Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 09/2011; 5 Suppl 2:S176-81. · 1.14 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.