Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-08T01:19:05.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

(M10) Institutional Self-Response to a Disaster Drill: A Descriptive Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2017

Bonnie Arquilla
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
Vineet Gupta
Affiliation:
New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Baruch S. Fertel
Affiliation:
New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
Patricia M. Roblin
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
Stephan A. Kohlhoff
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
Michael H. Augenbraun
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:

Predisaster Drill Activities (PDAs) may act as predictors of preparedness, but have been studied inadequately. To address this gap, a descriptive study of PDAswas conducted at two large hospitals.

Methods:

A longitudinal study was conducted at two large academic hospitals (A: a tertiary care university hospital, and B: an urban, municipal, Level-1 Trauma Center) in Brooklyn, New York. Both were equipped with disaster plans. Over a period of five weeks preceding a full-scale drill of a simulated pandemic influenza outbreak, eight sequential public health alerts were issued. Hospital responses to pre-identified components were recorded: (1) training; (2) equipment; (3) communications; (4) incident command centers; (5) supplies; (6) staffing; (7) infection control measures; and (8) miscellaneous. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

Results:

The overall response rate to all die alerts for Hospital A was 67%, while that for Hospital B was 40% (p <0.009).The median delay in responding to alerts for Hospital A was six days (range = 0–19 days), and B was seven days (range = 0–21 days). Training was die most frequendy cited component (n = 20), however the median delays (days) were two (range = 0–13), and nine (range = 4–21) for hospitals A and B, respectively. Responses to communications, supplies and incident command center components were delayed or inadequate. Some additional unexpected responses such as supplemental meetings (n = 4) and additional infection control measures (n = 3) were elicited at both hospitals.

Conclusions:

There were disparate responses to identical triggers at similar sites. Pre-disaster Drill Activities may help identify emergency response preparedness gaps and augment available resources for optimal utilization.

Type
Poster Presentations—Education and Training
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2009