I thank Dr. Coule et al for their interest and efforts in the field of disaster medicine. I absolutely agree with them that disaster education should be consistent across localities and should incorporate all practitioners, not just emergency physicians. The most logical way to do this, it seems to me, is to have standards set by the federal government, and then met locally, as is usually done for federal highway funding and other grant programs, and as I stated in my editorial. They offer National Disaster Life Support as a model for how this might be done. I can’t comment on the quality of the National Disaster Life Support course as it is taught, since I have not taken it. According to the course Web site, however, the course fee, which can vary by teaching site, is at least in part to pay for the honoraria of “national course faculty” who are sent to observe the teaching, which is done by local experts.1National Disaster Life Support Foundation. Available at: http://www.bdls.com/faqs.asp. Accessed August 9, 2006Google Scholar Having examined some of the course materials, I can say that it appears to be a compilation and paraphrasing of various open-source, government-developed, and previously published materials, in a format akin to a textbook. As a compilation, it may serve a purpose as a reference, and I would certainly encourage its developers and sponsors to make it available free of charge, especially since its development has been supported using government funding (CDC, according to1National Disaster Life Support Foundation. Available at: http://www.bdls.com/faqs.asp. Accessed August 9, 2006Google Scholar; or at least it could be sold as a textbook (what I believe would be the third or fourth in the field). A major apparent premise of the course, that having a restricted group of “course faculty” as observers at a session allows attendees to achieve a meaningful and valid “merit badge,” goes directly counter to what I advocate: that all practitioners at all levels need to receive relevant disaster training as part of their standard clinical training, that it should be free (ie, government-funded as a public good2US Department of Veteran’s Affairs. The Emergency Management Strategic Healthcare Group home page. Available at: http://www.va.gov/emshg/. Accessed August 9, 2006.Google Scholar, 3Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Emergency preparedness and response. Available at: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/. Accessed August 9, 2006.Google Scholar, 4US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Education and training. Available at: http://www.usamriid.army.mil/education/index.htm. Accessed August 9, 2006.Google Scholar, 5US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense. Chemical casualty care division. Available at: http://ccc.apgea.army/mil/products/info/products.htm. Accessed August 9, 2006.Google Scholar and convenient (eg, Web-based, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Incident Management System training courses, etc,6Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA ICS resource center. Available at: http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/ICSResource/. Accessed August 9, 2006.Google Scholar that standard certification and licensing tests in each discipline should cover such material, and that at this point in the growth of the field, local expertise can easily cover the few unique clinical aspects of disaster care as well as incorporating a much better review of specific local circumstances. Myths of Disaster Education: A RebuttalAnnals of Emergency MedicineVol. 49Issue 2PreviewIn the January 2006 issue of Annals, we believe that Burnstein’s editorial, “Myths of Disaster Education,” is incorrect in many assertions. His thesis is emergency physician-centric, neglecting the fact that other health care providers will serve front line roles during disasters. Full-Text PDF
Read full abstract
Jul 1, 2024
Theresa Berthold + 4
Open Access