According to many experts, a public health emergency arising from an influenza pandemic, bioterrorism attack, or natural disaster is likely to develop in the next few years. Meeting the public health and medical response needs created by such an emergency will likely involve volunteers, health care professionals, public and private hospitals and clinics, vaccine manufacturers, governmental authorities, and many others. Conducting response activities in emergency circumstances may give rise to numerous issues of liability, and medical professionals and other potential responders have expressed concern about liability exposure. Providers may face inadequate resources, an insufficient number of qualified personnel, overwhelming demand for services, and other barriers to providing optimal treatment, which could lead to injury or even death in some cases. This article describes the different theories of liability that may be used by plaintiffs and the sources of immunity that are available to public health emergency responders in the public sector, private sector, and as volunteers. It synthesizes the existing immunity landscape and analyzes its gaps. Finally, the authors suggest consideration of the option of a comprehensive immunity provision that addresses liability protection for all health care providers during public health emergencies and that, consequently, assists in improving community emergency response efforts. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3:117–125)

No standard exists by which to evaluate a hospital’s compliance for the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The instruments available and in use today for the evaluation of hospital preparedness have variable adherence to the principles and elements set forth in NIMS. This is especially evident in the areas of command and management and communications and information management. The use of NIMS as a standard remains itself in question because of its lack of focus on the health care environment and incomplete list of pertinent elements. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 1):S83–S89)

Hospitals throughout the country are using innovative strategies to accommodate the surge of patients brought on by the novel H1N1 virus. One strategy has been to help decompress the amount of patients seeking care within emergency departments by using alternate sites of care, such as tents, parking lots, and community centers as triage, staging, and screening areas. As at any other time an individual presents on hospital property, hospitals and providers must be mindful of the requirements of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. In this article we review the act and its implications during public health emergencies, with a particular focus on its implications on alternative sites of care. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 2):S172–S175)

Legal preparedness is an essential component of effective public health emergency response, evinced recently by the numerous emergency declarations issued at the federal, state, and local levels to address the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak. Although the impact of these emergency laws at the federal and state levels has been studied extensively, the scope and role of local emergency laws have not been similarly assessed. In this article, we examine key issues of emergency laws among select US localities in the context of the recent H1N1 outbreak and their application to volunteer health professionals, who are often needed to meet patient surge capacity during local emergencies.

Localities represent the front line of emergency preparedness and must address an array of legal challenges before and during declared emergencies. Local legal preparedness differs based on overarching restrictions such as the degree of home rule provided to localities under state law. Some localities take innovative legal approaches to address emergency preparedness. Although beneficial in many respects, these variations add additional complexity to legal preparedness and intensify the need for predisaster planning, exercises, and coordination. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 2):S176–S184)

Because of the importance of including ethical considerations in planning efforts for pandemic influenza, in February 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requested that the Ethics Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee to the Director develop guidance that would serve as a foundation for decision making in preparing for and responding to pandemic influenza. Specifically, the ethics subcommittee was asked to make recommendations regarding ethical considerations relevant to decision making about vaccine and antiviral drug distribution prioritization and development of interventions that would limit individual freedom and create social distancing. The ethics subcommittee identified a number of general ethical considerations including identification of clear goals for pandemic planning, responsibility to maximize preparedness, transparency and public engagement, sound science, commitment to the global community, balancing individual liberty and community interests, diversity in ethical decision making, and commitment to justice. These general ethical considerations are applied to the issues of vaccine and antiviral drug distribution and use of community mitigation interventions. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 2):S185–S192)

New and reemerging infectious diseases, such as pandemic viruses and resistant bacteria, pose a serious threat in the 21st century. Some of these agents represent global security threats. This review provides an overview of diagnostic challenges presented by pandemic influenza and biothreat agents. The article summarizes recent pandemics and disease outbreaks, point-of-care influenza diagnostic tests, biothreat agents, biothreat instrument systems, and technologies in development. It highlights how medical innovation and health care initiatives can help prepare health care professionals and public health personnel to handle future crises. Based on gap analysis for current point-of-care testing deficiencies, it concludes with policy recommendations that will enhance preparedness. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 2):S193–S202)

The respiratory protective equipment necessary to protect health care workers from the novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus is not known. The knowledge gap created by this unanswered question has caused substantial debate and controversy on a global scale, leading public health organizations to feel pressured into issuing decisive recommendations despite a lack of supportive data. Changes in clinical practice caused by public health guidance during such high-profile events can be expected to establish a new standard of care. Also possible is an unforeseen gradual transition to widespread N95 respirator use, driven by public health pressures instead of science, for all outbreaks of influenza or influenza-like illness. Therefore, public health organizations and other influential institutions should take care to avoid making changes to established practice standards, if possible, unless these changes are bolstered by sound scientific evidence. Until definitive comparative effectiveness clinical trials are conducted, the answer to this question will continue to remain elusive. In the meantime, relying on ethical principles that have been substantiated over time may help guide public health and clinical decisions. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 2):S203–S210)