Little is known about the risk perceptions and attitudes of healthcare personnel, especially of emergency prehospital medical care personnel, regarding the possibility of an outbreak or epidemic event.

This study was designed to investigate pre-event knowledge and attitudes of a national sample of the emergency prehospital medical care providers in relation to a potential human influenza pandemic, and to determine predictors of these attitudes.

Surveys were distributed to a random, cross-sectional sample of 20% of the Australian emergency prehospital medical care workforce (n = 2,929), stratified by the nine services operating in Australia, as well as by gender and location. The surveys included: (1) demographic information; (2) knowledge of influenza; and (3) attitudes and perceptions related to working during influenza pandemic conditions. Multiple logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors of pandemic-related risk perceptions.

Among the 725 Australian emergency prehospital medical care personnel who responded, 89% were very anxious about working during pandemic conditions, and 85% perceived a high personal risk associated with working in such conditions. In general, respondents demonstrated poor knowledge in relation to avian influenza, influenza generally, and infection transmission methods. Less than 5% of respondents perceived that they had adequate education/training about avian influenza. Logistic regression analyses indicate that, in managing the attitudes and risk perceptions of emergency prehospital medical care staff, particular attention should be directed toward the paid, male workforce (as opposed to volunteers), and on personnel whose relationship partners do not work in the health industry.

These results highlight the potentially crucial role of education and training in pandemic preparedness. Organizations that provide emergency prehospital medical care must address this apparent lack of knowledge regarding infection transmission, and procedures for protection and decontamination. Careful management of the perceptions of emergency prehospital medical care personnel during a pandemic is likely to be critical in achieving an effective response to a widespread outbreak of infectious disease.

The H1N1 influenza virus has been described by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the media as a disease that could rival the 1918 Spanish Influenza epidemic in deaths. During the spring of 2009, emergency departments across the world saw a spike in the number of influenza cases and by June 2009, the WHO had declared H1N1 a pandemic. In order to prevent emergency department staff from becoming ill and to provide upto-date medical care to patients, information had to be disseminated quickly to emergency department staff.

An anonymous Internet survey was utilized to query emergency department staff regarding communication methods and overall attitudes regarding safety and treatment during the spring of 2009.

The majority of emergency department staff (263; 88.3%) used multiple sources to obtain information about the H1N1 virus. There were 258 respondents (88.9%) that felt that the hospital was supplying them with the necessary information to protect themselves and their families and 280 (98.5%) felt confident that their emergency department was treating patients by the government-recommended guidelines. Statistically significant differences were noted in communication patterns between direct and indirect patient care providers.

In general, H1N1 communication to emergency department staff was perceived as good during the initial H1N1 outbreak. However, because of the limitations associated with an online survey, these results do not allow for generalization to the total emergency department staff population. Hospital administrators may need to consider the differences in communication preferences of direct patient care providers and indirect patient care providers when distributing important information to emergency department staff during crisis and emergency situations.

Falls are one of the most common types of complaints received by 9-1-1 emergency medical dispatch centers. They can be accidental or may be caused by underlying medical problems. Though not alert” falls patients with severe outcomes mostly are “hot” transported to the hospital, some of these cases may be due to other acute medical events (cardiac, respiratory, circulatory, or neurological), which may not always be apparent to the emergency medical dispatcher (EMD) during call processing.

The objective of this study was to characterize the risk of cardiac arrest and “hot-transport” outcomes in patients with “not alert” condition, within the Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS®) Falls protocol descriptors.

This retrospective study used 129 months of de-identified, aggregate, dispatch datasets from three US emergency communication centers. The communication centers used the Medical Priority Dispatch System version 11.3–OMEGA type (released in 2006) to interrogate Emergency Medical System callers, select dispatch codes assigned to various response configurations, and provide pre-arrival instructions. The distribution of cases and percentages of cardiac arrest and hot-transport outcomes, categorized by MPDS® code, was profiled. Assessment of the association between MPDS® Delta-level 3 (D-3) “not alert” condition and cardiac arrest and hot-transport outcomes then followed.

Overall, patients within the D-3 and D-2 “long fall” conditions had the highest proportions (compared to the other determinants in the “falls” protocol) of cardiac arrest and hot-transport outcomes, respectively. “Not alert” condition was associated significantly with cardiac arrest and hot-transport outcomes (p < 0.001).

The “not alert” determinant within the MPDS® “fall” protocol was associated significantly with severe outcomes for short falls (<6 feet; 2 meters) and ground-level falls. As reported to 9-1-1, the complaint of a “fall” may include the presence of underlying conditions that go beyond the obvious traumatic injuries caused by the fall itself.

Emergency prehospital medical care providers are frontline health workers during emergencies. However, little is known about their attitudes, perceptions, and likely behaviors during emergency conditions. Understanding these attitudes and behaviors is crucial to mitigating the psychological and operational effects of biohazard events such as pandemic influenza, and will support the business continuity of essential prehospital services.

This study was designed to investigate the association between knowledge and attitudes regarding avian influenza on likely behavioral responses of Australian emergency prehospital medical care providers in pandemic conditions.

Using a reply-paid postal questionnaire, the knowledge and attitudes of a national, stratified, random sample of the Australian emergency prehospital medical care workforce in relation to pandemic influenza were investigated. In addition to knowledge and attitudes, there were five measures of anticipated behavior during pandemic conditions: (1) preparedness to wear personal protective equipment (PPE); (2) preparedness to change role; (3) willingness to work; and likely refusal to work with colleagues who were exposed to (4) known and (5) suspected influenza. Multiple logistic regression models were constructed to determine the independent predictors of each of the anticipated behaviors, while controlling for other relevant variables.

Almost half (43%) of the 725 emergency prehospital medical care personnel who responded to the survey indicated that they would be unwilling to work during pandemic conditions; one-quarter indicated that they would not be prepared to work in PPE; and one-third would refuse to work with a colleague exposed to a known case of pandemic human influenza.

Willingness to work during a pandemic (OR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.0−1.9), and willingness to change roles (OR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.04−2.0) significantly increased with adequate knowledge about infectious agents generally. Generally, refusal to work with exposed (OR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.3−0.7) or potentially exposed (OR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.3−0.6) colleagues significantly decreased with adequate knowledge about infectious agents. Confidence in the employer's capacity to respond appropriately to a pandemic significantly increased employee willingness to work (OR = 2.83; 95% CI = 1.9−4.1); willingness to change roles during a pandemic (OR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.1−2.1); preparedness to wear PPE (OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 1.1−2.5); and significantly decreased the likelihood of refusing to work with colleagues exposed to (suspected) influenza (OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.4−0.9).

These findings indicate that education and training alone will not adequately prepare the emergency prehospital medical workforce for a pandemic. It is crucial to address the concerns of ambulance personnel and the perceived concerns of their relationship with partners in order to maintain an effective prehospital emergency medical care service during pandemic conditions.

On 13 September 2008, Hurricane Ike made landfall near Galveston, Texas, resulting in an estimated 74 deaths statewide and extensive damage in many counties. The Texas Department of State Health Services, US Public Health Service, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted assessments beginning 12 days following hurricane landfall to identify the public health needs of three affected communities. The results of the assessment are presented, and an example of a type of public health epidemiological response to a disaster due to a natural hazard is provided.

A one-page questionnaire that focused on household public health characteristics was developed. Using a two-stage cluster sampling methodology, 30 census blocks were selected randomly in three communities (Galveston, Liberty, and Manvel, Texas). Seven households were selected randomly from each block to interview.

The assessments were conducted on 25, 26, and 30 September 2008. At the time of the interview, 45% percent of the households in Galveston had no electricity, and 26% had no regular garbage collection. Forty-six percent reported feeling that their residence was unsafe to inhabit due to mold, roof, and/or structural damage, and lack of electricity. Sixteen percent of households reported at least one member of the household had an injury since the hurricane. In Liberty, only 7% of the household members interviewed had no access to food, 4% had no working toilet, 2% had no running water, and 2% had no electricity. In Manvel, only 5% of the households did not have access to food, 3% had no running water, 2% had no regular garbage collection, and 3% had no electricity.

Post-Ike household-level surveys conducted identified the immediate needs and associated risks of the affected communities. Despite the response efforts, a high proportion of households in Galveston still were reportedly lacking electricity and regular garbage pickup 17 days post-storm. The proportion of households with self-reported injury in Galveston suggested the need to enhance public education on how to prevent injuries during hurricane cleanup. Galveston public health officials used the assessment to educate local emergency and elected officials of the health hazards related to lack of basic utilities and medical care in the community. This resulted in the provision of an extensive public health outreach education program throughout the island. The Liberty and Manvel assessment findings suggest that most households in both communities were receiving the basic utilities and that the residents felt “safe”. The assessments reassured local health officials that there were no substantial acute public health needs and provided objective information that services were being restored.

The Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS) is an emergency medical dispatch system widely used to prioritize 9-1-1 calls and optimize resource allocation. This study evaluates whether the assigned priority predicts a Delphi process-derived level of prehospital intervention in each emergency medical dispatch category.

All patients given a MPDS priority in a suburban California county from 2004–2006 were included. A Delphi process of emergency medical services (EMS) professionals in another system developed the following categories of prehospital treatment representing increasing acuity, which were adapted for this study: advanced life support (ALS) intervention, ALS–Stat, and ALS–Critical. The sensitivities and specificities of MPDS priority for level of prehospital intervention were determined for each MPDS category.

A total of 65,268 patients met inclusion criteria, representing 61% of EMS calls during the study period. The overall sensitivities of high-priority dispatch codes for ALS, ALS-Stat, and ALS-Critical interventions were 83% (95% confidence interval 83–84%), 83% (82–84%), and 94% (92–96%). Overall specificities were: ALS, 32% (31–32%); ALS-Stat, 31% (30–31%); and ALS-Critical 28% (28–29%). Compared to calls assigned to a low priority, calls with high-priority dispatch codes were more likely to receive ALS interventions by 22%, ALS-Stat by 20%, and ALS-Critical by 32%. A low priority dispatch code decreased the likelihood of ALS interventions by 48%, ALS-Stat by 45%, and ALS-Critical by 80%. Among high-priority dispatch codes, the rates of interventions were: ALS 26%, ALS-Stat 22%, and ALS-Critical 1.5%, all of which were significantly greater than low-priority calls (p <0.05) [ALS 13%, ALS-Stat 11%, and ALS-Critical 0.2%]. Major MPDS were categories with high sensitivities (>95%) for ALS interventions included breathing problems, cardiac or respiratory arrest/death, chest pain, stroke, and unconscious/fainting; these categories had an average specificity of 3%. Medical Priority Dispatch System categories such as back pain, unknown problem, and traumatic injury had sensitivities for ALS interventions <15%.

The MPDS is moderately sensitive for the Delphi process derived ALS, ALS-Stat, and ALS-Critical intervention levels, but non-specific. A low MPDS priority is predictive of no prehospital intervention. A high priority, however, is of little predictive value for ALS, ALS-Stat, or ALSCritical interventions.