Qi Zhi

Mass fatality preparedness among medical examiners/coroners in the United States: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundIn the United States (US), Medical Examiners and Coroners (ME/Cs) have the legal authority for the management of mass fatality incidents (MFI). Yet, preparedness and operational capabilities in this sector remain largely unknown. The purpose of this study was twofold; first, to identify appropriate measures of preparedness, and second, to assess preparedness levels and factors significantly associated with preparedness.MethodsThree separate checklists were developed to measure different aspects of preparedness: MFI Plan Elements, Operational Capabilities, and Pre-existing Resource Networks. Using a cross-sectional study design, data on these and other variables of interest were collected in 2014 from a national convenience sample of ME/C using an internet-based, anonymous survey. Preparedness levels were determined and compared across Federal Regions and in relation to the number of Presidential Disaster Declarations, also by Federal Region. Bivariate logistic and multivariable models estimated the associations between organizational characteristics and relative preparedness.ResultsA large proportion (42%) of respondents reported that less than 25 additional fatalities over a 48-hour period would exceed their response capacities. The preparedness constructs measured three related, yet distinct, aspects of preparedness, with scores highly variable and generally suboptimal. Median scores for the three preparedness measures also varied across Federal Regions and as compared to the number of Presidential Declared Disasters, also by Federal Region. Capacity was especially limited for activating missing persons call centers, launching public communications, especially via social media, and identifying temporary interment sites. The provision of staff training was the only factor studied that was significantly (positively) associated (p < .05) with all three preparedness measures. Although ME/Cs ranked local partners, such as Offices of Emergency Management, first responders, and funeral homes, as the most important sources of assistance, a sizeable proportion (72%) expected federal assistance.ConclusionsThe three measures of MFI preparedness allowed for a broad and comprehensive assessment of preparedness. In the future, these measures can serve as useful benchmarks or criteria for assessing ME/Cs preparedness. The study findings suggest multiple opportunities for improvement, including the development and implementation of national strategies to ensure uniform standards for MFI management across all jurisdictions.

Adherence to Emergency Public Health Measures for Bioevents: Review of US Studies

The frequency of bioevents is increasing worldwide. In the United States, as elsewhere, control of contagion may require the cooperation of community members with emergency public health measures. The US general public is largely unfamiliar with these measures, and our understanding of factors that influence behaviors in this context is limited. The few previous reviews of research on this topic focused on non-US samples. For this review, we examined published research on the psychosocial influences of adherence in US sample populations. Of 153 articles identified, only 9 met the inclusion criteria. Adherence behaviors were categorized into 2 groups: self-protective behaviors (personal hygiene, social distancing, face mask use, seeking out health care advice, and vaccination) and protecting others (isolation, temperature screening, and quarantine). A lack of uniformity across studies regarding definitions and measures was noted. Only 5 of the 9 articles reported tests of association between adherence with emergency measures and psychosocial factors; perceived risk and perceived seriousness were found to be significantly associated with adherence or adherence intentions. Although it is well documented that psychosocial factors are important predictors of protective health behaviors in general, this has not been rigorously studied in the context of bioevents. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:528-535).

Preparedness of US Health Care Volunteers Who Deployed to the West Africa Ebola Epidemic

ranged from 33% (death care industry) to 77% (offices of emergency management). Resource sharing capability analysis indicated that only 42% of possible reciprocal relationships between resource-sharing partners were present. The overall cross-sector composite score was 51%; that is, half of the key capabilities for preparedness were in place. Conclusion: Results indicate that the US mass fatality infrastructure is sub-optimally prepared for MFI that exceeds 25 or fewer additional deaths in a 48-hr period. National leadership is needed to ensure sector-specific and infrastructure-wide preparedness, with a special focus on training, drills, and planning activities for large-scale or complex MFI.

Mass-Fatality Incident Preparedness Among Faith-Based Organizations

Introduction Members of faith-based organizations (FBOs) are in a unique position to provide support and services to their local communities during disasters. Because of their close community ties and well-established trust, they can play an especially critical role in helping communities heal in the aftermath of a mass-fatality incident (MFI). Faith-based organizations are considered an important disaster resource and partner under the National Response Plan (NRP) and National Response Framework; however, their level of preparedness and response capabilities with respect to MFIs has never been evaluated. The purpose of this study was threefold: (1) to develop appropriate measures of preparedness for this sector; (2) to assess MFI preparedness among United States FBOs; and (3) to identify key factors associated with MFI preparedness. Problem New metrics for MFI preparedness, comprised of three domains (organizational capabilities, operational capabilities, and resource sharing partnerships), were developed and tested in a national convenience sample of FBO members. METHODS Data were collected using an online anonymous survey that was distributed through two major, national faith-based associations and social media during a 6-week period in 2014. Descriptive, bivariate, and correlational analyses were conducted. RESULTS One hundred twenty-four respondents completed the online survey. More than one-half of the FBOs had responded to MFIs in the previous five years. Only 20% of respondents thought that roughly three-quarters of FBO clergy would be able to respond to MFIs, with or without hazardous contamination. A higher proportion (45%) thought that most FBO clergy would be willing to respond, but only 37% thought they would be willing if hazardous contamination was involved. Almost all respondents reported that their FBO was capable of providing emotional care and grief counseling in response to MFIs. Resource sharing partnerships were typically in place with other voluntary organizations (73%) and less likely with local death care sector organizations (27%) or Departments of Health (DOHs; 32%). CONCLUSIONS The study suggests improvements are needed in terms of staff training in general, and specifically, drills with planning partners are needed. Greater cooperation and inclusion of FBOs in national planning and training will likely benefit overall MFI preparedness in the US. Zhi Q , Merrill JA , Gershon RR . Mass-fatality incident preparedness among faith-based organizations. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(6):596-603.

Self-reported Preparedness to Respond to Mass Fatality Incidents in 38 State Health Departments

Context: Public health departments play an important role in the preparation and response to mass fatality incidents (MFIs). Objective: To describe MFI response capabilities of US state health departments. Design: The data are part of a multisector cross-sectional study aimed at 5 sectors that comprise the US mass fatality infrastructure. Data were collected over a 6-week period via a self-administered, anonymous Web-based survey. Setting: In 2014, a link to the survey was distributed via e-mail to health departments in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Participants: State health department representatives responsible for their states MFI plans. Measures: Preparedness was assessed using 3 newly developed metrics: organizational capabilities (n = 19 items); operational capabilities (n = 19 items); and resource-sharing capabilities (n = 13 items). Results: Response rate was 75% (n = 38). Among 38 responses, 37 rated their workplace moderately or well prepared; 45% reported MFI training, but only 30% reported training on MFI with hazardous contaminants; 58% estimated high levels of staff willingness to respond, but that dropped to 40% if MFIs involved hazardous contaminants; and 84% reported a need for more training. On average, 76% of operational capabilities were present. Resource sharing was most prevalent with state Office of Emergency Management but less evident with faith-based organizations and agencies within the medical examiner sector. Conclusion: Overall response capability was adequate, with gaps found in capabilities where public health shares responsibility with other sectors. Collaborative training with other sectors is critical to ensure optimal response to future MFIs, but recent funding cuts in public health preparedness may adversely impact this critical preparedness element. In order for the sector to effectively meet its public health MFI responsibilities as delineated in the National Response Framework, resources to support training and other elements of preparedness must be maintained.