Showing posts with label emergency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emergency. Show all posts

OVERVIEW OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The public health community is charged with organizing the preparedness and response of the health and medical services in the United States. After years of decay, public health is evolving in its leadership role for domestic disaster organizational response. For healthcare executives to engage in domestic preparedness, it is essential to develop solid relationships with local and regional public health officials, local and area emergency management agencies (EMAs), and local responder organizations.
Add a Note HereBefore establishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the approach to disaster management for terrorist events was divided into two discrete functions: crisis management and consequence management. Crisis management is a security/law enforcement function focused on identifying the perpetrators of an event, collecting and protecting evidence and the chain of custody, and ensuring justice for those involved. At the federal level, crisis management currently falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Consequence management refers to addressing the consequences of a disaster and is currently under the jurisdiction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Under DHS, federal guidelines will merge the elements of crisis and consequence management into a unified command structure.

 CDC Grant Programs to Improve Public Health Preparedness and Response for Bioterrorism
Planning and readiness assessment establishes strategic leadership, direction, assessment, and coordination of activities (including the Strategic National Stockpile response) to ensure statewide readiness; interagency collaboration; and local and regional preparedness (both intrastate and interstate) for bioterrorism, other outbreaks of infectious disease, and other public health threats and emergencies.
Surveillance and epidemiology capacity focuses on enabling state and local health departments to enhance, design, and/or develop systems for rapid detection of unusual outbreaks of illness that may be the result of bioterrorism, other outbreaks of infectious disease, and other public health threats and emergencies.
Laboratory capacity—biologic agents develops the capability and capacity at all state and major city/county public health laboratories to conduct rapid and accurate diagnostic and reference testing for select biologic agents likely to be used in a terrorist attack.
Health Alert Network (HAN) enables state and local public health agencies to link public health and private partners around the clock through Internet capability. The program provides for rapid dissemination of public health advisories and ensures secure electronic data exchange.
Communication of health risks and dissemination of health information ensures timely information dissemination to citizens during a bioterrorist attack, other outbreak of infectious disease, or other public health threat or emergency.
Education and training assesses the training needs of key public health professionals, infectious-disease specialists, emergency department personnel, and other healthcare providers related to preparedness for and response to bioterrorism, other outbreaks of infectious disease, and other public health threats and emergencies.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003. “Continuation Guidance for Cooperative Agreement on Public Health Preparedness and Response for Bioterrorism—Budget Year Four.” [Online article; retrieved 8/03.] http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/continuationguidance/pdf/guidance_intro.pdf.
Add a Note HereThe Department of Homeland Security, with embedded elements of DHHS, provides a federal structure and system for coordination and oversight of resources that are essential for assisting areas affected by disaster. FEMA’s ten geographical regions work closely with state and local EMAs, ensuring consistency of services to all areas and citizens.
Add a Note HereAt the state level, EMAs assume a multitude of different organizational structures. The emergency management community consists of professional emergency managers, emergency operations center personnel, 911 telecommunicators, and first responders—that is, fire departments, emergency medical services, medical transport, and law enforcement. When activated for disasters, the EMA expands to coordinate all primary agencies with designated roles in response to a declared disaster. These may vary in number and are dependent on the size and extent of the disaster. However, once a governor has declared a state of emergency, the EMA becomes the coordinating hub for activation of the local and/or state emergency operations plan. Mirroring the Federal Response Plan, representatives from each of the emergency support functions coordinate services from the EMA.
Add a Note HereEmergency management uses an “all hazards” framework based on the premise that most incidents will draw on similar resources and will apply a similar structure in managing the response to an incident, as opposed to identifying a different structural response for different types of emergencies. In developing an all-hazards plan, unique aspects of incidents are addressed in annexes to existing plans rather than in a separate plan produced for each event.

Understanding and Implementing Standards and Guidelines for Emergency Management

Several regulations, guidelines, and standards have improved the management of emergencies and disasters in the United States over the last two decades. Such publications have been developed and released by organizations and government agencies such as ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

The principles within these standards and guidelines regarding

  • mass-casualty incidents,

  • hazardous materials,

  • decontamination, and

  • emergency management program development.

Multiple- and Mass-Casualty Incident Standards

ASTM standard F-1288, Standard Guide for Planning for and Responding to a Multiple Casualty Incident, covers planning, needs assessment, training, interagency coordination, mutual aid, and other important issues as they relate to multiple-casualty incidents. It identifies key terms and activities and explains how the incident management process is organized at the scene (ASTM 1990).

In addition to that standard, George Washington University recently developed a peer-reviewed model for mass-casualty response that integrates the functional requirements of medical, public health, and emergency management agencies in the Medical and Health Incident Management System (MaHIM) (available online at http://www.gwu.edu/~icdrm/). The model was based on the definition of a mass-casualty incident involving 5,000 casualties, 10 percent of which would be considered significant (Barbera and Macintyre 2002). Casualty refers to any human accessing health or medical services, including mental health services and fatality care, as a result of a hazard impact. The MaHIM model clarifies the types of activities that may become necessary at the community-health-system level and how they would be organized in a mass-casualty incident.

It is a useful tool for jurisdictional and regional system development, education, and planning. The Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS 2002) and the Department of Homeland Security (U.S. DHS 2003) promote this type of management-system framework and are considering applying MaHIM to support current public health and hospital bioterrorism preparedness (CDC 2003). MaHIM is entirely consistent with broader efforts to create a national incident-management system (The White House 2003).

Hazardous-Materials Legislation

A sentinel event occurred in 1985 in Bhopal, India, in which thousands were killed and injured as a result of the release of a toxic gas from a nearby industrial facility. Congress responded to the concerns of such a disaster occurring in the United States by enacting the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, amending the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.

SARA Title III

The basic purpose of SARA Title III, also known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, was to promote emergency planning to respond to chemical releases and to ensure that information regarding chemicals in the community is available to the public and emergency response agencies. These goals are accomplished by

  • establishing state emergency response commissions and local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) with responsibility to develop emergency plans to be followed in the event of a chemical release and

  • implementing a series of notification and reporting requirements to state and local emergency planning activities with respect to type and quantities of specific chemicals.

Environmental Protection Agency

As part of SARA Title III, the EPA will not enforce HAZWOPER for environmental consequences stemming from necessary and appropriate actions such as decontamination during the phase of an emergency response where an imminent threat to human health and life is present. However, once this phase passes, every attempt should be made to contain the runoff and dispose of it properly (Makris 1999).

Beyond industrial or transportation accidents involving hazardous materials, recent events have directed major emphasis on preparedness for occurrences involving weapons of mass destruction. Because of this threat, hospitals and health departments have become much more involved in communitywide emergency preparedness efforts.

One question that has been hotly debated is how SARA Title III, or more specifically HAZWOPER, applies to healthcare facility preparedness for these types of hazardous materials. OSHAs position until lately had been that if the contaminating substance was unknown, staff performing decontamination at a hospital who were not in the immediate area of the release were required to wear Level B personal protective equipment (PPE), including a mask supplied by an external air source.

Many experts disputed the necessity of this elevated measure of pro tection, contending that Level C PPE using a full face mask with powered or nonpowered canister filtration systems was adequate for hospital decontamination (Macintyre et al. 2000). In September 2002, OSHA took the position that as long as the choice of PPE was based on a risk assessment conducted by the employer, the agency would not require any particular level of PPE and respiratory protection (Fairfax 2002).

Decontamination

Healthcare facilities that do not prepare for the potential arrival of contaminated patients face a dilemma. Refusing to assess and, if necessary, stabilize a contaminated patient is a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (U.S. GAO 2001). Employees who have not been adequately trained or equipped to deal with the situation can refuse to participate, leaving the facility only one choice: to dial 911 and request support from the local public safety system. These same resources, however, may already be fully involved at the site of the release.

Department of Vetemns Affairs

The VA developed a mass-casualty decontamination program that is based on a site-specific hazards vulnerability and capability analysis of the facility and surrounding community. Permanent or semipermanent showering facilities (in smoking shelters, along an external wall, etc.) are seen as advantageous over temporary tent-type facilities because of the speed of setup and lower expense (VA 2002a). Macintyre et al. (2000) believe that the following aspects are key to an effective decontamination protocol:

  1. Event recognition

  2. Activation

  3. Primary triage

  4. Patient registry

  5. Collection of clothing and personal property

  6. Decontamination

  7. Secondary triage

  8. Treatment and post-incident activities (e.g., media and family relations, medical surveillance, critique, etc.)

Healthcare-facility-decontamination training programs should follow NFPA standard 473, Standard for Competencies for EMS Personnel Responding to Hazardous Materials Incidents (Beatty 2003). NFPA 473 (this standard may be reviewed at http://www.nfpa.org/PDF/473.pdf?STC=nfpa) identifies the levels of competence required of emergency medical services personnel who respond to hazardous-materials incidents (NFPA 2002a). It specifically covers requirements for basic (Level I) and advanced (Level II) life-support personnel in the prehospital setting. This standard also provides information on training, recommended support resources, medical treatment considerations, patient decontamination, and hazardous-materials characteristics and references.

Emergency Management Standards

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations

In January 2001, JCAHO updated its emergency preparedness standards (standards EC.1.4, EC.2.4, and EC.2.9.1[1.] found in the Environment of Care, or EC, section), adopting the four phases of comprehensive emergency management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Other key additions to the emergency management standards were requirements for a hazards vulnerability analysis (HVA), the requirement that healthcare organizations implement an incident command system (ICS) consistent with that used by their community, and the acceptance of tabletop exercises for one of two required annual drills. Specific requirements for drills include the following:

  • A facility designated as business occupancy must execute one drill annually.

  • Hospitals, long-term-care organizations, ambulatory care facilities, and behavioral health facilities not classified as business occupancy must conduct drills twice a year at least four months, but not more than eight months, apart.

  • Facilities offering emergency services or designated as disaster receiving stations must base one exercise on an external disaster, and it must include volunteer/simulated patients who must be triaged, put on stretchers or in wheelchairs, and transported through the system as if they were actual patients.

  • An organization must participate in a community drill that is relevant to its priority emergencies and that will assess communications, coordination, and the effectiveness of the organization’s and the community’s command structures.

The events of terrorism that took place in the United States in fall 2001 brought several more changes to the overall 2002 standards, including clarification on the process and products of the HVA (in particular, that procedures should be developed for each priority hazard identified), a requirement for cooperative planning with other healthcare facilities in the geographic area, and procedures for emergency credentialing. In 2003, components of the hospital emergency management standards were extended to long-term care, ambulatory care, behavioral health care, and home health care settings (Environment of Care News 2002). For 2004, the EC standards have been renumbered and reformatted but have not undergone any substantive changes in requirements.

National Fire Protection Association

NFPA emergency management Standard 99, entitled “Healthcare Facilities,” contains very similar requirements to JCAHO (NFPA 2002b). One big difference between the standards is the additional material in the annexes of the NFPA standard: explanatory material, references, and additional planning considerations (NFPA 2002a).

NFPA Standard 1600, Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs, has gained international recognition and consensus among the public and private sectors. This standard articulates the generic elements of these programs and serves as the basis for an emergency management program evaluation and accreditation system by state, local, and tribal governments (NEMA 2001). Thus, NFPA 1600 represents a standard for communitywide emergency management programs (NFPA 2002c).

Emergency Operations Planning | Disaster Planning

Many healthcare organizations confuse emergency operations planning with preparedness. In fact, developing an emergency operations plan (EOP) is but one component of an effective emergency management program to ensure preparedness. Healthcare organizations must develop plans for two different scenarios: one in which they serve as response agencies and one in which they are also victims of the incident. If one plan alone is developed, it must address both of these circumstances. An EOP can be thought of as an executive-level or leadership guidebook to manage the consequences of a disaster. It is a concept document that describes in general terms what response operations and functions will be performed or accomplished by what department, agency, or organization and under what circumstances. It is not a detailed reference tome to be used as a standard operating procedures manual by all response personnel during actual disaster operations.

In addition to EOPs, many organizations develop adjunctive standard operating procedures or job aids. These are more detailed, job-specific or department-specific checklists that delineate duties and responsibilities of each individual or position that is part of the organization response plan. Many of the details usually seen in EOPs should rightfully be placed in these documents, which provide instructions on how to do what is necessary in support of the EOP.

Of paramount importance in EOP development for incidents involving CBRNE are 15 basic issues. These areas are described in the following sections.

Notification. It is imperative that hospitals and emergency departments be included in a notification system that a disaster event has occurred that may affect healthcare services. In CBRNE events, the risk to the facility multiplies. Less than 20 percent of those contaminated by industrial chemicals are subsequently decontaminated on the scene (Levitin and Siegelson 1996); thus, the potential for arrival of contaminated victims at the healthcare facility must be considered and planned for.

Decontamination. Who will perform decontamination, where it is to be performed, how the disposition of victims and their belongings will be handled, and how contaminated wastewater will be handled should be addressed early in the planning process. If outside resources will be required, their availability and timeliness of response must be verified. Appropriate supplies and equipment, PPE, and a process for patient flow from contaminated to clean areas must be addressed.

Facility physical protection. In addition to actual victims, a large number of asymptomatic, possibly exposed individuals (often referred to as “worried well”) may also present for care, and this additional workload must be anticipated. As was seen in the Tokyo sarin event, these individuals may rapidly overrun the facility and may indeed pose a threat to continued operations (Matsui, Ohbu, and Yamashina 1996).

Evacuation. Released agents may remain airborne for a significant period of time. If the facility is downwind from the site of release, provisions must be established to rapidly decide if evacuation of patients, staff, and visitors is necessary. Transportation assets and receiving facilities must be identified. The establishment of alternate treatment facilities, until such time as environmental surety has been established, should also be included.

Shelter-in-place. When sufficient time to evacuate the facility is not available, expedient shelter-in-place provisions must be developed. Policies concerning securing of ventilation systems, internal movement of patients, and provision of PPE to critical facility personnel must be addressed. Sheltering-in-place can be accomplished horizontally (movement along the same level or floor into an area of the facility away from risk) or vertically (movement to higher or lower floors to escape threats where damage has occurred or where height is an issue, such as in flooding, fire, or high winds).

Detection. Detection is one of the weak links in the chain of emergency management and response. Most biological agents will not produce immediate symptoms, many chemical agents have delayed presentations, and, short of massive radiation doses, weeks may pass before those exposed may feel ill. Detection may occur through trend analysis if done in a near-real-time fashion through syndromic surveillance. Syndromic surveillance is a public health epidemiological process of collecting and analyzing patient data based on predetermined signs and symptoms, referred to as a syndrome. The goal of this analysis is to identify abnormal changes or trends in the numbers of patients presenting at portals of entry to the healthcare system. However, this must occur prior to the diseases that cause these syndromes progressing to the point of fatalities or severe morbidity, so that preventive and treatment measures may be instituted early in the course of the outbreak. Detection may also occur clinically or through laboratory analysis. The EOP should identify detection methods used and the procedures to be followed should an event be suspected.

Identification. Separate from detection, identification of agents that produce similar clinical syndromes or effects but have different treatment and protection regimens is a critical capability. Because most hospital laboratories do not have these sophisticated testing capabilities, methods of linking to CDCs Laboratory Response Network must be included in EOPs.

Triage. Triage of victims of a CBRNE event differs from that for other mass-casualty events because many more victims are likely. In the event of a biological-agent attack, two different victims with identical physiological measurements may have significantly different survival probabilities. Specific life-saving procedures, such as the administration of antidotes, may exist that would alter traditional triage algorithms predicated on the ability of the community healthcare network to absorb all casualties in short order—a situation unlikely to occur if the entire community is affected (Burkle 2002).

Treatment options. Just as triage of CBRNE victims is different, so are treatment concerns. The nature of traumatic disasters is such that the majority of victims who will eventually die do so at the scene or during the first 24 to 48 hours, and most do not require isolation to protect other patients and staff. Victims of chemical, biological, or radiological events may require sophisticated support (including burn therapy, isolation rooms, invasive monitoring, and mechanical ventilation) and may require these modalities for prolonged periods of time.

Surge capacity. The ability to increase facility capacity to accept more victims while facing resource constraints, especially during the initial hours and days after the event, is a huge challenge. Other patients not affected by the disaster may continue to present with emergencies that will require treatment. It is unacceptable to assume that only victims of the disaster will be ministered to during response operations. Early discharges, transfers, and use of home health care services may functionally expand facilities, while cancellation of elective procedures and same-day surgery may free more beds and staff. Extending shift times for staff from 8 hours to 12 hours for a short period (less than one week) effectively increases staff by 50 percent (Schultz, Mothershead, and Field 2002).

Surge capacity also applies to material resources. A facility may elect to increase caches of materials and supplies, but storage capabilities and costs of procurement may be a hindrance. Service-level or backup agreements or even memoranda of understanding with local pharmacies and hospital-supply distributors may provide a functional supply surge capacity at a fraction of the cost. This also obviates the need to dedicate space and personnel to store and maintain these goods.

Prophylaxis. Determining who will receive prophylaxis, and at what priority, in the event of a biological release and methods for distributing and dispensing these pharmaceuticals must be included in an EOP. Keep in mind that unprotected staff will most likely not work, nor will staff who are concerned about their families. The facility’s role in providing or dispensing prophylactic antibiotics to the community must also be ascertained.

Fatality management. A large event may produce a significant number of casualties who die after arrival at a hospital, overwhelming hospital morgues. If surge facilities for temporary interment cannot be identified through traditional services (e.g., city morgues, funeral homes), alternate sites must be established and appropriately equipped, staffed, and secured. It is unwise to presume that other response organizations will assume this responsibility. This issue, as others, should be addressed at the community-planning level, with all providers informed of the plan for mass-fatality management.

Counseling services. As seen after the World Trade Center and Murrah Federal Building attacks, responders may suffer both acute and long-term stress reactions, including delayed development of post-traumatic stress disorder (North et al. 2002). It is the responsibility of the healthcare organization to take care of its employees, and the provision of counseling services cannot be ignored. The healthcare system will also most likely be called on to provide these services for victims, victims’ families, and the community at large. Depending on the nature of the disaster, counseling requirements may far outstrip other medical needs of survivors and the community.

Horizontal and vertical integration. Integrating health services with other local or regional response organizations is essential for successful emergency operations. The prolonged phases of emergency response require that healthcare networks operate together and that various actions by other response organizations be interdependent. Organizations must not plan in a vacuum. Federal law requires the use of an incidentmanagement system in such operations (U.S. Congress 1996). A terrorist event involving CBRNE agents also mandates activation of the Federal Response Plan, which is soon to be replaced with the National Response Plan being developed by the Department of Homeland Security. (See Chapter 7 for more information on organized emergency management systems and the Federal Response Plan.)

Law enforcement and incident forensics. Any terrorist event is a criminal act, and law enforcement investigators will be intimately involved throughout all phases of response. Additional requirements for maintaining a legal chain of custody while handling and transporting samples, patient information sharing, and other cooperative ventures will require new approaches to incident management by all response organizations.

Popular Posts