CDC's Multiple Approaches to Safeguard the Health, Safety, and Resilience of Ebola Responders.

Over 27,000 people were sickened by Ebola and over 11,000 people died between March of 2014 and June of 2016. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; Atlanta, Georgia USA) was one of many public health organizations that sought to stop this outbreak. This agency deployed almost 2,000 individuals to West Africa during that timeframe. Deployment to these countries exposed these individuals to a wide variety of dangers, stressors, and risks.Being concerned about the at-risk populations in Africa, and also the well-being of its professionals who willingly deployed, the CDC did several things to help safeguard the health, safety, and resilience of these team members before, during, and after deployment.The accompanying special report highlights innovative pre-deployment training initiatives, customized screening processes, and post-deployment outreach efforts intended to protect and support the public health professionals fighting Ebola. Before deploying, the CDC team members were expected to participate in both internally-created and externally-provided trainings. These ranged from pre-deployment briefings, to Preparing for Work Overseas (PFWO) and Public Health Readiness Certificate Program (PHRCP) courses, to Incident Command System (ICS) 100, 200, and 400 courses.A small subset of non-clinical deployers also participated in a three-day training designed in collaboration with the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress (CSTS; Bethesda, Maryland USA) to train individuals to assess and address the well-being and resilience of themselves and their teammates in the field during a deployment. Participants in this unique training were immersed in a Virtual Reality Environment (VRE) that simulated deployment to one of seven different types of emergencies.The CDC leadership also requested a pre-deployment screening process that helped professionals in the CDC's Occupational Health Clinic (OHC) determine whether or not individuals were at an increased risk of negative outcomes by participating in a rigorous deployment at that time.When deployers returned from the field, they received personalized invitations to participate in a voluntary, confidential, post-deployment operational debriefing one-on-one or in a group.Implementing these approaches provided more information to clinical decision makers about the readiness of deployers. It provided deployers with a greater awareness of the kinds of challenges they were likely to face in the field. The post-deployment outreach efforts reminded staff that their contributions were appreciated and there were resources available if they needed help processing any of the potentially-traumatizing things they may have experienced.

The Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART): an intervention to build community resilience to disasters.

Community resilience has emerged as a construct to support and foster healthy individual, family, and community adaptation to mass casualty incidents. The Communities Advancing Resilience Toolkit (CART) is a publicly available theory-based and evidence-informed community intervention designed to enhance community resilience by bringing stakeholders together to address community issues in a process that includes assessment, feedback, planning, and action. Tools include a field-tested community resilience survey and other assessment and analytical instruments. The CART process encourages public engagement in problem solving and the development and use of local assets to address community needs. CART recognizes 4 interrelated domains that contribute to community resilience: connection and caring, resources, transformative potential, and disaster management. The primary value of CART is its contribution to community participation, communication, self-awareness, cooperation, and critical reflection and its ability to stimulate analysis, collaboration, skill building, resource sharing, and purposeful action.

The virtual network supporting the front lines: addressing emerging behavioral health problems following the tsunami of 2004.

The devastation wreaked by the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean required extensive multinational and nongovernmental relief efforts to address the massive loss of infrastructure, people, and society. This article addresses approaches to behavioral incident management from a process perspective, through the lens of one official stateside channel of emergency operations. The process highlights the formation and connectivity of multidisciplinary teams that virtually supported the efforts of a seven-person, on-scene, behavioral health team aboard the USNS Mercy as part of Operation Unified Assistance in the Indian Ocean. Frontline health diplomacy and behavioral health relief efforts were greatly augmented by the virtual network of support from leading experts around the globe. Future disaster response and recovery efforts ought to build on the success of such virtual support networks, by planning for appropriate technology, expertise, and mutual aid partnerships.

Impact of 2003 power outages on public health and emergency response.

INTRODUCTION: In 2003, a major power outage occurred in the midwest and northeast United States affecting some 50 million people. The power outages affected multiple systems in state and local municipalities and, in turn, affected public health. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted using open-ended questionnaires, with a convenience sample of state- and locally selected subject matter experts from Ohio, Michigan, and New York. Respondents were interviewed in groups representing one of five areas of interest, including: (1) emergency preparedness; (2) hospital and emergency medical services; (3) municipal environmental systems; (4) public health surveillance and epidemiology; and (5) psychosocial and behavioral issues. The reported positive and negative impacts of the power outage on public health, medical services, and emergency preparedness and response were documented. Responses were categorized into common themes and recommendations were formulated. RESULTS: The amount of time that the respondents' locations were without power ranged from <1 hour to 52 hours. Many common themes emerged from the different locations, including communications failures, alternate power source problems, manpower and training issues, and psychosocial concerns. There was minimal morbidity and mortality reported that could be attributed to the event. CONCLUSION: Power outages negatively impacted multiple municipal infra-structures, and affected medical services, emergency response, and public health efforts. Previous federal funding positively impacted public health and emergency response capabilities. Recommendations were made based upon the common themes identified by the respondents. Recommendations may assist state and local health departments, medical service providers, and emergency responders in planning for future power outage problems.