Public Health Preparedness Capabilities Research Articles

Development of a Pharmacy Point-of-Dispensing Toolkit for Anthrax Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for Allegheny County Postal Workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Postal Service (USPS) consider anthrax to be a potential threat to USPS workers. A county health department-owned pharmacy supports local USPS response in the event of an exposure. The pharmacy team identified the need to review and update the local anthrax response plan. A Pharmacy Point-of-Dispensing Toolkit and response plan for initial 10-day post-exposure antibiotic prophylaxis was developed for use by a local health department in the event of a mass anthrax exposure at a US Post Office sorting facility. The pharmacist's role in medical countermeasures planning for anthrax exposure is also discussed to illustrate how pharmacists' medication expertise can be utilized. The CDC's Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning framework and inputs from an interprofessional stakeholder team were used to develop a Medical Countermeasures Response Plan and Implementation Toolkit for mass point-of-dispensing (POD) in the event of an anthrax exposure. Stakeholders attended a USPS Community Partner Training event where additional revisions to the toolkit were made. The toolkit and standing order are now implemented at the local health department to be reviewed and updated on a yearly basis by health department leadership. Pharmacists can use their medication expertise and experience with patient education to design emergency response plans focused on increasing patient safety and medication adherence. Pharmacists should be involved in emergency response and medical countermeasures planning that involve medications.

Building Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Capabilities Through Disaster Citizen Science: Perspectives From Local Health Department, Academic, and Community Representatives.

Disaster citizen is the use of scientific methods by the public to address preparedness, response, or recovery needs. Disaster citizen science applications with public health relevance are growing in academic and community sectors, but integration with public health emergency preparedness, response, and recovery (PHEPRR) agencies is limited. We examined how local health departments (LHDs) and community-based organizations have used citizen science to build public health preparedness and response (PHEP) capabilities. The purpose of this study is to help LHDs make use of citizen science to support PHEPRR. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews (n = 55) with LHD, academic, and community representatives engaged or interested in citizen science. We used inductive and deductive methods to code and analyze interview transcripts. US and international community-based organizations and US LHDs. Participants included 18 LHD representatives reflecting diversity in geographic regions and population sizes served and 31 disaster citizen science project leaders and 6 citizen science thought leaders. We identified challenges LHDs and academic and community partners face in using citizen science for PHEPRR as well as strategies to facilitate implementation. Academic and community-led disaster citizen science activities aligned with many PHEP capabilities including community preparedness, community recovery, public health surveillance and epidemiological investigation, and volunteer management. All participant groups discussed challenges related to resources, volunteer management, collaborations, research quality, and institutional acceptance of citizen science. The LHD representatives noted unique barriers due to legal and regulatory constraints and their role in using citizen science data to inform public health decisions. Strategies to increase institutional acceptance included enhancing policy support for citizen science, increasing volunteer management support, developing best practices for research quality, strengthening collaborations, and adopting lessons learned from relevant PHEPRR activities. There are challenges to overcome in building PHEPRR capacity for disaster citizen science but also opportunities for LHDs to leverage the growing body of work, knowledge, and resources in academic and community sectors.

Preventing COVID-19 and Its Sequela: “There Is No Magic Bullet... It's Just Behaviors”

Preventing COVID-19 and Its Sequela: “There Is No Magic Bullet... It's Just Behaviors”

Enhancing public health preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities through the Florida Hurricane Response Hub

In 2017, climate-driven Atlantic hurricanes – Harvey, Irma, and Maria – produced harmful population health effects. Florida was one of the most significantly affected states. These hurricanes caused significant damage, but over time, lessons were revealed for opportunities to increase hurricane resilience. As a result, the Florida Hurricane Response Hub was established; this Hub was used as one of five technical assistance centers comprising the Hurricane Response Hub Initiative, which were established in areas most affected by hurricanes. The Initiative sought to improve population health through the dissemination of education and other resources by facilitating training, technical assistance, and information sharing to improve preparedness, response, and recovery of the public health workforce. The overall goal of the project was to coordinate efforts among federal, state, and local public health organizations to enhance ongoing environmental and occupational health recovery efforts, which improves workforce capacity and institutional knowledge to improve disaster-related recovery for future hurricanes.

Evolution of the Public Health Preparedness and Response Capability Standards to Support Public Health Emergency Management Practices and Processes.

In spring 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning. The capability standards provide a framework that supports state, local, tribal, and territorial public health agency preparedness planning and response to public health threats and emergencies. In 2017, a project team at the CDC Division of State and Local Readiness incorporated input from subject matter experts, national partners, and stakeholders to update the 2011 capability standards. As a result, CDC released the updated capability standards in October 2018, which were amended in January 2019. The original structure of the 15 capability standards remained unchanged, but updates were made to capability functions, tasks, and resource elements to reflect advances in public health emergency preparedness and response practices since 2011. When the number of functions and tasks in the 2018 capability standards were compared to those in the 2011 capabilities, only 20% (3/15) of the capabilities had a decrease in function number. The majority of changes were at the task level (task numbers changed in 80%, or 12/15, capabilities) in the 2018 version. The capability standards provide public health agencies with a practical framework, informed by updated science and tools, which can guide prioritization of limited resources to strengthen public health agency emergency preparedness and response capacities.

A Comparison of US Federal Government Spending for Research and Development Related to Public Health Preparedness Capabilities, 2008-2017.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed 15 National Public Health Emergency and Preparedness Response Capabilities (NPHPRCs) to serve as national standards for health-related core capabilities. The objective of this study is to determine the level of federal funding allocated for research related to NPHPRCs during 2008-2017. An online search of http://www.USAspending.gov was performed to identify federal awards, grants, contracts from 2008-2017 related to research associated with NPHPRCs. Inclusion criteria were identifiable as research and disaster-related; US-based; and specific reference to any of the NPHPRCs. A panel of 3 experts reviewed each entry for inclusion. The search identified 15 278 transactions representing US $29.2 billion in awards. After exclusions, 93 entries were found to be related to NPHPRCs, averaging US $2 783 136 annually. Funding notably dropped to US $168 684 in 2010 and ceased entirely in 2016. Ten (67%) of NPHPRCs received funding. Eighty-percent of funding focused on 4 capabilities. Three federal agencies funded 80% of research. Sixteen (24%) of the 47 recipients received 80% of all funding. US federal investments in research and development related to NPHPRCs have been highly variable over the past decade. One-third of NPHPRCs receive no funding. There are notable gaps in funding, content, continuity, and scope of participation.

Analysis of sectoral participation in the development of Joint External Evaluations

BackgroundThe Joint External Evaluation Process (JEE), developed in response to the 2014 Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), is a voluntary, independent process conducted by a team of external evaluators to assess a country’s public health preparedness capabilities under the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) revision. Feedback from the JEE process is intended to aid in the development of national action plans by elucidating weaknesses in current preparedness and response capabilities.MethodsTo identify gaps in sector participation and the development of national action plans in response to public health emergencies, all English-language JEE reports available on March 31, 2018 (N = 47) were systematically reviewed to determine sectoral backgrounds of key host country participants.ResultsOverall, strong representation was seen in the health, agriculture, domestic security, and environment sectors, whereas the energy/nuclear and defense sectors were largely under-represented.ConclusionsWhile strong participation by more traditional sectors such as health and agriculture is common in the JEE development process, involvement by the defense and energy/nuclear sectors in the JEE process could be increased, potentially improving preparedness and response to widespread public health emergencies.

Superstorm Sandy's impact on the provision of WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) services in New York State.

Services provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) were interrupted in 2012 when Superstorm Sandy struck New York State (NYS). The present study evaluates the impact on WIC providers. A focus group, telephone interviews and anonymous online survey were conducted. Qualitative data were analysed by coding transcribed text into key words and identifying major and minor themes for strengths, challenges and recommendations using national public health preparedness capabilities. Survey responses were analysed quantitatively; reported challenges were classified by preparedness capability. The focus group was held at a 2014 regional WIC meeting. Interviews and a survey were conducted via telephone in 2014 and online in 2015, respectively. WIC staff representing New York City and three NYS counties. In the focus group (n 12) and interviews (n 6), 'emergency operations coordination' was the most cited capability as a strength, 'environmental health protection' (against environmental hazards) as a challenge and 'flexibility' (on rules and procedures) as a recommendation. In the survey (n 24), the capability 'information sharing' was most often cited as a challenge. Most staff (66·6 %) reported their programmes were at least somewhat prepared for future weather-related disasters. Only 16·7 % indicated having practiced a work-related emergency response plan since Sandy. Staff who practiced an emergency response plan were more likely to indicate they were prepared (P < 0·05). The study identified WIC programme areas requiring preparedness improvements. The research methodology can be utilized to assess the continuity of other public health services during disasters.

How Health Department Contextual Factors Affect Public Health Preparedness (PHP) and Perceptions of the 15 PHP Capabilities

To assess how health department contextual factors influence perceptions of the 15 Public Health Preparedness Capabilities, developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to provide guidance on organizing preparedness activities. We conducted an online survey and focus group between September 2015 and May 2016 with directors of preparedness programs in state, metropolitan, and territorial jurisdictions funded by CDC's Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) cooperative agreement. The survey collected demographic information and data on contextual factors including leadership, partnerships, organizational structure, resources and structural capacity, and data and evaluation. Seventy-seven percent (48 of 62) of PHEP directors completed the survey and 8 participated in the focus group. Respondents were experienced directors (mean = 10.6 years), and 58% led 7 or more emergency responses. Leadership, partnerships, and access to fiscal and human resources were associated with perception and use of the capabilities. Despite some deficiencies, PHEP awardees believe the capabilities provide useful guidance and a flexible framework for organizing their work. Contextual factors affect perceptions of the capabilities and possibly the effectiveness of their use. Public Health Implications. The capabilities can be used to address challenges in preparedness, including identifying evidence-based practices, developing performance measures, and improving responses.

Superstorm Sandy: Emergency management staff perceptions of impact and recommendations for future preparedness, New York State.

This study collected and summarized feedback from staff at the New York State (NYS) Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and three county OEMs within NYS to understand lessons learned from the 2012 Superstorm Sandy. Cross-sectional qualitative and quantitative analysis. One staff person from each identified critical role from the state and county OEMs who were still employed in the roles identified. In-person interviews in 2014 followed by an anonymous survey in 2015 examined the response strengths, challenges, and recommendations using federally and study-defined Public Health Preparedness Capabilities. Quantitative analysis of staff survey ratings was used to summarize perceptions of interagency collaboration, communication effectiveness, and differences by staff position. Response rates were 78 percent for interviews (n = 7) and 45 percent for surveys (n = 36). In interviews, "emergency operations coordination" was cited most frequently (48 percent), specifically for successful interagency coordination. "Emergency operations coordination" was also cited most among challenges (45 percent), with emphasis on problems with uniformity of software systems across agencies. Survey responses indicated that "volunteer management" (50 percent) and the "safety and health of responders" (40 percent) were frequently reported as challenges. Additionally, 38 percent of OEM staff reported that situation reports submitted by health departments need improvement. Recommendations from OEM staff included "emergency operations coordination" (36 percent) such as sharing of resources and "training" (16 percent) including hospital evacuation training. Analysis of OEM staff feedback identified specific challenges, and concrete recommendations were made to improve response going forward.

New York State Public Health System Response to Hurricane Sandy: An Analysis of Emergency Reports.

Analyzing Hurricane Sandy emergency reports to assess the New York State (NYS) public health system response will help inform and improve future disaster preparedness and response. Qualitative analysis of NYS Department of Health (NYSDOH) and Nassau and Suffolk County local health department (LHD) emergency reports was conducted. Three after-action reports and 48 situation reports were reviewed, grouped by key words and sorted into 16 Public Health Preparedness Capabilities. Within each capability, key words were labeled as strengths, challenges, or recommendations. The NYSDOH capability most cited as a strength was successful emergency operations coordination, eg, interagency conference calls (27.4% of 1681 strengths). The most cited challenge was environmental health protection, eg, mold and oil spills (28% of 706 challenges). The LHD capability most cited both as a strength (46.7% of 30 strengths) and as a challenge (32.5% of 123 challenges) was emergency operations coordination. Strengths were exemplified by sharing local resources and challenges by insufficient memorandums of understanding for coordination. Post-disaster emergency reports should be systematically reviewed to highlight both successes and areas for improvement. Future studies should prioritize collecting feedback from a wider spectrum of public health and service provider staff for planning of preparedness and response activities. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;10:308-313).

Contributions of academia to public health preparedness research.

The 2006 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) resulted in the development of several major program areas designed to respond to its legislation, “to improve the nation's public health and medical preparedness and response capabilities for emergencies, whether deliberate, accidental, or natural.”1 In 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR) created seven Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) in an effort to support the goals of PAHPA. The program expanded to nine centers in 2009. PERRCs, located at Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH)-accredited schools of public health, were tasked to improve “public health practice for preparedness and emergency response planning and policies at the local, state, federal, and tribal level.”2 CEPH is an independent agency certified by the U.S. Department of Education that accredits schools and programs of public health to assure compliance with well-defined standards. CDC established a cooperative agreement in 2008 with the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH), now known as the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH), to provide programmatic support to the PERRCs (“Year Four: ASPH Continuation Application,” application by CDC, June 2008). As the voice of accredited public health education, ASPPH works to transform public health by strengthening and promoting the education, research, service, and practice activities of CEPH-accredited schools and programs of public health and by advocating for the investments in science that will advance population health. A commitment to advocating for evidence-based public health policies and programs lies at the core of the ASPPH mission (Unpublished document, ASPPH Strategic Framework, ASPPH, 2013). PERRCs conduct research that can be used to enhance public health preparedness (PHP) policies, planning, and response.2 Most health departments lack the resources to test new theories or concepts, but the federal funding allocated for these centers allows researchers to be more innovative in their work.3 The PERRCs have formed numerous collaborations with community partners and performed extensive outreach, including to disciplines not traditionally engaged in public health activities, such as engineering, law, and public policy. Involving stakeholders is a crucial component of translational research.4 As a result, those working with communities can feel confident that their activities and trainings are rooted in evidence.

Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers: supporting the workforce for national health security.

The importance of a competent and prepared national public health workforce, ready to respond to threats to the public's health, has been acknowledged in numerous publications since the 1980s. The Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers (PERLCs) were funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2010 to continue to build upon a decade of focused activities in public health workforce preparedness development initiated under the Centers for Public Health Preparedness program (http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/cphp/). All 14 PERLCs were located within Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) accredited schools of public health. These centers aimed to improve workforce readiness and competence through the development, delivery, and evaluation of targeted learning programs designed to meet specific requirements of state, local, and tribal partners. The PERLCs supported organizational and community readiness locally, regionally, or nationally through the provision of technical consultation and dissemination of specific, practical tools aligned with national preparedness competency frameworks and public health preparedness capabilities. Public health agencies strive to address growing public needs and a continuous stream of current and emerging public health threats. The PERLC network represented a flexible, scalable, and experienced national learning system linking academia with practice. This system improved national health security by enhancing individual, organizational, and community performance through the application of public health science and learning technologies to frontline practice.

A public health hazard mitigation planning process.

The Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Rural Public Health, a member of the Training and Education Collaborative System Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Center (TECS-PERLC), has long-standing partnerships with 2 Health Service Regions (Regions) in Texas. TECS-PERLC was contracted by these Regions to address 2 challenges identified in meeting requirements outlined by the Risk-Based Funding Project. First, within Metropolitan Statistical Areas, there is not a formal authoritative structure. Second, preexisting tools and processes did not adequately satisfy requirements to assess public health, medical, and mental health needs and link mitigation strategies to the Public Health Preparedness Capabilities, which provide guidance to prepare for, respond to, and recover from public health incidents. TECS-PERLC, with its partners, developed a framework to interpret and apply results from the Texas Public Health Risk Assessment Tool (TxPHRAT). The 3-phase community engagement-based TxPHRAT Mitigation Planning Process (Mitigation Planning Process) and associated tools facilitated the development of mitigation plans. Tools included (1) profiles interpreting TxPHRAT results and identifying, ranking, and prioritizing hazards and capability gaps; (2) a catalog of intervention strategies and activities linked to hazards and capabilities; and (3) a template to plan, evaluate, and report mitigation planning efforts. The Mitigation Planning Process provided a framework for Regions to successfully address all funding requirements. TECS-PERLC developed more than 60 profiles, cataloged and linked 195 intervention strategies, and developed a template resulting in 20 submitted mitigation plans. A public health-focused, community engagement-based mitigation planning process was developed by TECS-PERLC and successfully implemented by the Regions. The outcomes met all requirements and reinforce the effectiveness of academic practice partnerships and importance of community engagement in mitigation planning. Additional funding has been approved to expand the Mitigation Planning Process to all counties in Texas with local health departments.

Accreditation and Emergency Preparedness

Public health officials must frequently demonstrate the quality and value of public health services, especially during challenging fiscal climates. One of the ways that public health quality and accountability have been demonstrated is through the use of accreditation and standard setting initiatives. The objective of this analysis was to identify existing alignment opportunities between standards established by the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) public health preparedness (PHP) capabilities in order to optimize and leverage the connections for state and local public health professionals. During March-May 2012, a PHAB/PHP crosswalk was developed by a research team from the CDC's Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support and Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response's Division of State and Local Readiness to examine the intersection of the PHP capabilities and the PHAB standards. The PHAB/PHP crosswalk used the CDC Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning (PHP Capabilities) and the PHAB Standards and Measures, Version 1.0 (PHAB Standards) as its source documents. To help illustrate the results of the crosswalk, alignment was also depicted through a network graph to transform the results into a visual depiction of the linkages between PHP capabilities and PHAB standards. The most direct links to emergency preparedness were found in PHAB Domains 2 and 5. Opportunities for improved alignment were found throughout the standard documents, particularly in PHAB Domains 3, 8, and 11. The most direct links to accreditation were found in PHP capabilities 1, 2, 3, and 4. The results highlight the synergy between the infrastructure and foundational elements represented by accreditation and targeted programmatic activities supported by preparedness funding.

Improving Public Health Preparedness Capacity Measurement: Development of the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey

To address limitations in measuring the preparedness capacities of health departments, we developed and tested the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey (PCAS). Preexisting instruments and a modified 4-cycle Delphi panel process were used to select instrument items. Pilot test data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. Kappa statistics were calculated to examine rater agreement within items. The final instrument was fielded with 85 North Carolina health departments and a national matched comparison group of 248 health departments. Factor analysis identified 8 initial domains: communications, surveillance and investigation, plans and protocols, workforce and volunteers, legal infrastructure, incident command, exercises and events, and corrective action. Kappa statistics and z scores indicated substantial to moderate agreement among respondents in 7 domains. Cronbach α coefficients ranged from 0.605 for legal infrastructure to 0.929 for corrective action. Mean scores and standard deviations were also calculated for each domain and ranged from 0.41 to 0.72, indicating sufficient variation in the sample to detect changes over time. The PCAS is a useful tool to determine how well health departments are performing on preparedness measures and identify opportunities for future preparedness improvements. Future survey implementation will incorporate recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning.

Local Public Health System Response to the Tsunami Threat in Coastal California following the Tōhoku Earthquake.

Background On Friday March 11, 2011 a 9.0 magnitude earthquake triggered a tsunami off the eastern coast of Japan, resulting in thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars in damage around the Pacific Rim. The tsunami first reached the California coast on Friday, March 11th, causing more than $70 million in damage and at least one death. While the tsunami’s impact on California pales in comparison to the destruction caused in Japan and other areas of the Pacific, the event tested emergency responders’ ability to rapidly communicate and coordinate a response to a potential threat. Methods To evaluate the local public health system emergency response to the tsunami threat in California, we surveyed all local public health, emergency medical services (EMS), and emergency management agencies in coastal or floodplain counties about several domains related to the tsunami threat in California, including: (1) the extent to which their community was affected by the tsunami, (2) when and how they received notification of the event, (3) which public health response activities were carried out to address the tsunami threat in their community, and (4) which organizations contributed to the response. Public health activities were characterized using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Public Health Preparedness Capabilities (PHEP) framework. Findings The tsunami's impact on coastal communities in California ranged widely, both in terms of the economic consequences and the response activities. Based on estimates from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ten jurisdictions in California reported tsunami-related damage, which ranged from $15,000 to $35 million. Respondents first became aware of the tsunami threat in California between the hours of 10:00pm Pacific Standard Time (PST) on Thursday March 10th and 2:00pm PST on Friday March 11th, a range of 16 hours, with notification occurring through both formal and informal channels. In response to this threat, the activities most commonly reported by the local government agencies included in this study were: emergency public information and warning, emergency operations coordination, and inter-organizational information sharing, which were reported by 86%, 75%, and 65% of all respondents, respectively. When looking at the distribution of responsibility, emergency management agencies were the most likely to report assuming a lead role in these common activities as well as those related to evacuation and community recovery. While activated less frequently, public health agencies carried out emergency response functions related to surveillance and epidemiology, environmental health, and mental health/psychological support. Both local public health and EMS agencies took part in mass care and medical material management activities. A large network of organizations contributed to response activities, with emergency management, law enforcement, fire, public health, public works, EMS, and media cited by more than half of respondents. Conclusions In response to the tsunami threat in California, we found that emergency management agencies assumed a lead role in the local response efforts. While public health and medical agencies played a supporting role in the response, they uniquely contributed to a number of specific activities. If the response to the recent tsunami is any indication, these support activities can be anticipated in planning for future events with similar characteristics to the tsunami threat. Additionally, we found that many respondents first learned of the tsunami through the media, rather than through rapid notification systems, which suggests that government agencies must continue to develop and maintain the ability to rapidly aggregate and analyze information in order to provide accurate assessments and guidance to a potentially well-informed public. Citation: Hunter JC, Crawley AW, Petrie M, Yang JE, Aragón TJ. Local Public Health System Response to the Tsunami Threat in Coastal California following the Tōhoku Earthquake. PLoS Currents Disasters. 2012 Jul 16

A Public Health Academic-Practice Partnership to Develop Capacity for Exercise Evaluation and Improvement Planning

In December 2006, Congress passed the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act to improve the nation's public health preparedness and response capabilities. It includes the role of Centers for Public Health Preparedness (CPHPs) to establish a competency-based core curriculum and perform evaluation of impact on newly developed materials. The Heartland Center for Public Health Preparedness (HCPHP) at the Saint Louis University School of Public Health is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention national CPHP network and is engaged with state and regional partners in workforce development, preparedness planning, evaluation, and multi-year exercise and training cycles. This includes development, implementation, and evaluation of the HCPHP Exercise Evaluation Training Program to improve the competence and capacity for exercise evaluation and improvement planning. This program is designed to enhance quality improvement and performance measurement capabilities to identify increase of workforce competence over time (maturity).