This research evaluated the resilience of 6 tertiary and rural health facilities within a single Australian Health Service, using the World Health Organization (WHO) Hospital Safety Index (HSI). This adaptation of the HSI was compared with existing national accreditation and facility design Standards to assess disaster preparedness and identify opportunities for improvement.

This cross-sectional descriptive study surveyed 6 hospitals that provide 24/7 emergency department and acute inpatient services. HSI assessments, comprising 151 previously validated criteria, were conducted by Health Service engineers and facility managers before being externally reviewed by independent disaster management professionals.

All facilities were found to be highly disaster resilient, with each recording high HSI scores. Variances in structure, architectural safety, continuity of critical services supply, and emergency plans were consistently identified. Power and water supply vulnerabilities are common to previously reported vulnerabilities in health facilities of developing countries.

Clinical, engineering, and disaster management professionals assessed 6 Australian hospitals using the WHO HSI with each facility scoring highly, genuine vulnerabilities and practical opportunities for improvement were identified. This application of the WHO HSI, intended for use primarily in developing countries and disaster-affected regions, complimented and extended the existing Australian national health service accreditation and facility design Standards. These results support the expansion of existing assessment tools used to assess Australian health facility disaster preparedness and resilience.

General Practitioners (GPs) are inevitably involved when disaster strikes their communities. Evidence of health care needs in disasters increasingly suggests benefits from greater involvement of GPs, and recent research has clarified key roles. Despite this, GPs continue to be disconnected from disaster health management (DHM) in most countries.

The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of disaster management professionals in two countries, across a range of all-hazard disasters, regarding the roles and contributions of GPs to DHM, and to identify barriers to, and benefits of, more active engagement of GPs in disaster health care systems.

A qualitative research methodology using semi-structured interviews was conducted with a purposive sample of Disaster Managers (DMs) to explore their perspectives arising from experiences and observations of GPs during disasters from 2009 through 2016 in Australia or New Zealand. These involved all-hazard disasters including natural, man-made, and pandemic disasters. Responses were analyzed using thematic analysis.

These findings document support from DM participants for greater integration of GPs into DHM with New Zealand DMs reporting GPs as already a valuable integrated contributor. In contrast, Australian DMs reported barriers to inclusion that needed to be addressed before sustained integration could occur. The two most strongly expressed barriers were universally expressed by Australian DMs: (1) limited understanding of the work GPs undertake, restricting DMs’ ability to facilitate GP integration; and (2) DMs’ difficulty engaging with GPs as a single group. Other considerations included GPs’ limited DHM knowledge, limited preparedness, and their heightened vulnerability.

Strategies identified to facilitate greater integration of GPs into DHM where it is lacking, such as Australia, included enhanced communication, awareness, and understanding between GPs and DMs.

Experience from New Zealand shows systematic, sustained integration of GPs into DHM systems is achievable and valuable. Findings suggest key factors are collaboration between DMs and GPs at local, state, and national levels of DHM in planning and preparedness for the next disaster. A resilient health care system that maximizes capacity of all available local health resources in disasters and sustains them into the recovery should include General Practice.

The aim of this review was to explore hospital socio-natural disaster resilience by identifying: studies assessing structural and non-structural aspects of building resilience; components required to maintain a safe and functional health facility; and if the checklists used were comprehensive and easily performed.

A review systemic approach using PRISMA was taken to search the literature. The search focused on articles that discuss hospital disaster resilience. This includes assessments and checklists for facility structural and non-structural components.

This review identified 22 articles describing hospital assessments using checklists containing structural and non-structural elements of resilience. These studies identified assessments undertaken in ten countries, with eight occurring across Iran. A total of seven differing checklists were identified as containing aspects of structural or non-structural aspects of building resilience. The World Health Organization (WHO) has authored three checklists and four others were developed independently.

The structural resilience domain includes building integrity, building materials, design standards, and previous event damages as important elements to determine resilience. Within the internal safety and resilience domains, 11 differing elements were identified as important to non-structural or internal infrastructure resilience. These included the safety of power, water, telecommunication, medical gas supply, and medical equipment resupply systems.

Independent evaluation methods were reported in the majority of articles, with a small number highlighting the benefits of both self-evaluation and independent review processes. Implementation of training programs to evaluators was mentioned in three papers with the assessor’s knowledge and understanding of all checklist elements being highlighted as important to the validity of the evaluation.

The review identified the assessment of hospital resilience as important for management to determine areas of vulnerability within the hospital’s infrastructure and to inform improvement strategies. Assessment criteria must be comprehensive, highlighting structural and non-structural aspects of facility infrastructure. These assessments are best done as a multi-disciplinary collective of experts, involving hospital employees in the journey. This collaborative approach provides a key educational tool for developing disaster capacity, engaging ownership of the process, and the resulting improvements.

The on-going development of health facility and wider health system resilience must remain a key strategic focus of national governments and health authorities. The development of standardized procedures and guidelines must be embedded into daily practice.

Paramedics are tasked with providing 24/7 prehospital emergency care to the community. As part of this role, they are also responsible for providing emergency care in the event of a major incident or disaster. They play a major role in the response stage of such events, both domestic and international. Despite this, specific standardized training in disaster management appears to be variable and inconsistent throughout the profession. A suggested method of building disaster response capacities is through competency-based education (CBE). Core competencies can provide the fundamental basis of collective learning and help ensure consistent application and translation of knowledge into practice. These competencies are often organized into domains, or categories of learning outcomes, as defined by Blooms taxonomy of learning domains. It is these domains of competency, as they relate to paramedic disaster response, that are the subject of this review.

The methodology for this paper to identify existing paramedic disaster response competency domains was adapted from the guidance for the development of systematic scoping reviews, using a methodology developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI; Adelaide, South Australia) and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

The literature search identified six articles for review that reported on paramedic disaster response competency domains. The results were divided into two groups: (1) General Core Competency Domains, which are suitable for all paramedics (both Advanced Life Support [ALS] and Basic Life Support [BLS]) who respond to any disaster or major incident; and (2) Specialist Core Competencies, which are deemed necessary competencies to enable a response to certain types of disaster. Further review then showed that three separate and discrete types of competency domains exits in the literature: (1) Core Competencies, (2) Technical/Clinical Competencies, and (3) Specialist Technical/Clinical Competencies.

The most common domains of core competencies for paramedic first responders to manage major incidents and disasters described in the literature were identified. If it’s accepted that training paramedics in disaster response is an essential part of preparedness within the disaster management cycle, then by including these competency domains into the curriculum development of localized disaster training programs, it will better prepare the paramedic workforce’s competence and ability to effectively respond to disasters and major incidents.

Natural disasters often damage or destroy the protective public health service infrastructure (PHI) required to maintain the health and well-being of people with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). This interruption increases the risk of an acute exacerbation or complication, potentially leading to a worse long-term prognosis or even death. Disaster-related exacerbations of NCDs will continue, if not increase, due to an increasing prevalence and sustained rise in the frequency and intensity of disasters, along with rapid unsustainable urbanization in flood plains and storm-prone coastal zones. Despite this, the focus of disaster and health systems preparedness and response remains on communicable diseases, even when the actual risk of disease outbreaks post-disaster is low, particularly in developed countries. There is now an urgent need to expand preparedness and response beyond communicable diseases to include people with NCDs.

The developing evidence-base describing the risk of disaster-related exacerbation of NCDs does not incorporate the perspectives, concerns, and challenges of people actually living with the conditions. To help address this gap, this research explored the key influences on patient ability to successfully manage their NCD after a natural disaster.

A survey of people with NCDs in Queensland, Australia collected data on demographics, disease, disaster experience, and primary concern post-disaster. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests with a Bonferroni-adjustment were used to analyze data.

There were 118 responses to the survey. Key influences on the ability to self-manage post-disaster were access to medication, medical services, water, treatment and care, power, and food. Managing disease-specific symptoms associated with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental health, and respiratory diseases were primary concerns following a disaster. Stress and anxiety, loss of sleep, weakness or fatigue, and shortness of breath were common concerns for all patients with NCDs. Those dependent on care from others were most worried about shortness of breath and slow healing sores. Accessing medication and medical services were priorities for all patients post-disaster.

The key influences on successful self-management post-disaster for people with NCDs must be reflected in disaster plans and strategies. Achieving this will reduce exacerbations or complications of disease and decrease demand for emergency health care post-disaster.

Natural disasters often damage the public health infrastructure required to maintain the wellbeing of people with noncommunicable diseases. This increases the risk of an acute exacerbation or complications, potentially leading to a worse long-term prognosis or even death. Disaster-related exacerbations of noncommunicable diseases will continue, if not increase, due to an increasing disease prevalence, sustained rise in the frequency and intensity of disasters, and rapid unsustainable urbanization in disaster-prone areas. However, the traditional focus of public health and disaster systems remains on communicable diseases, despite a low risk. There is now an urgent need to expand the public health response to include noncommunicable diseases.

To explore the key influences on patient ability to successfully manage their noncommunicable disease after a natural disaster.

A survey of people with noncommunicable diseases in Queensland, Australia, collected data on demographics, disease/condition, disaster experience, and primary concern post-disaster. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests with Bonferroni-adjustment were used to analyze data.

There were 118 responses to the survey. Key influences on the ability to self-manage post-disaster were access to medication, medical services, water, treatment and care, power, and food. Managing disease-specific symptoms associated with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental health, and respiratory diseases were primary concerns following a disaster. Stress and anxiety, loss of sleep, weakness or fatigue and shortness of breath were common concerns for all noncommunicable diseases. Those dependent on care from others were most worried about shortness of breath and slow healing sores. Accessing medication and medical services were priorities for all patients post-disaster.

The key influences on successful self-management post disaster for people with noncommunicable diseases must be reflected in disaster plans and strategies. Achieving this will reduce exacerbations or complications of disease and decrease demand for emergency health care post-disaster.

When disasters happen, people experience broad environmental, physical, and psychosocial effects that can last for years. Researchers continue to focus on the acute physical injuries and aspects of patient care without considering the person as a whole. People who experience disasters also experience acute injury, exacerbations of chronic disease, mental and physical health effects, effects on social determinants of health, disruption to usual preventative care, and local community ripple effects. Researchers tend to look at these aspects of care separately, yet an individual can experience them all at once. The focus needs to change to address all the healthcare needs of an individual, rather than the likely needs of groups. Mental and physical care should not be separated, nor the determinants of health. The person, not the population, should be at the center of care. Primary care, poorly integrated into disaster management, can provide that focus with a "business as usual" mindset. This requires comprehensive, holistic coordination of care for people and families in the context of their local community.

To examine how Family Doctors (FDs) actually contribute to disaster response.

Thirty-seven disaster-experienced FDs were interviewed about how they contributed to response and recovery when disasters struck their communities.

FDs reported being guided by the usual evidence-based care characteristics of primary practice. The majority provided holistic comprehensive medical care and did not feel they needed many extra clinical training or skills. However, they did wish to understand the systems of disaster management, where they fit in, and their link to the broader disaster response.

The contribution of FDs to healthcare systems brings strengths of preventative care, early intervention, and ongoing local surveillance by a central, coordinating, and trusted health professional. There is no reason to not include disaster management in primary care.

Evidence-based training and curriculum are seen as vital in order to be successful in preparing paramedics for an effective disaster response. The creation of broadly recognized standard core competencies to support the development of disaster response education and training courses for general health care providers and specific health care professionals will help to ensure that medical personnel are truly prepared to care for victims of mass casualty events.

To identify current Australian operational paramedic’s specific disaster management education and knowledge as it relates to disaster management core competencies identified throughout the literature and the frequency of measures/techniques which these paramedics use to maintain competency and currency.

Paramedics from all states of Australia were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. Two professional bodies distributed the survey via social media and a major ambulance service was surveyed via email.

The study population includes 130 respondents who self-identified as a currently practicing Australian paramedic. Paramedics from all states except South Australia responded, with the majority coming from Queensland Ambulance Service (N= 81%). In terms of experience, 81.54% of respondents report being qualified for greater than 5 years. Initial analysis shows that despite the extensive experience of the practitioners surveyed when asked to rate from high to low their level of knowledge of specific disaster management core competencies a number of gaps exist.

Core competencies are a defined level of expertise that is essential or fundamental to a particular job, and serve to form the foundation of education, training, and practice for operational service delivery. While more research is needed, these results may help inform industry, government, and education providers to better understand and to more efficiently provide education and ongoing training to paramedics who are responsible for the management of disaster within the Australian community.

Health effects of disasters are mostly consistent across hazard types. Those working in communities affected by disasters have an opportunity to provide surveillance and early management to patients affected by disaster through increased understanding of the epidemiology or health consequences in the days, weeks, months, and years after disasters. Disasters have been called a social determinant of health and population-level changes or social determinants that have been documented post-incident. Environmental and community disruption contribute to health effects. Consequent health effects are evidenced across body systems, affecting both physical and mental health.

To develop guidelines for primary care patient review following a disaster, based on the temporal pattern of disease epidemiology.

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to examine the epidemiology of health consequences following disasters.

Guidelines for Family Doctors based on the literature review were developed to assist preventative care, surveillance, early identification of emerging conditions, and ongoing management of pre-existing disease.

Healthcare management in disasters focuses on acute healthcare in emergency departments and hospitals. However, healthcare is also being provided in primary healthcare settings during the first days to weeks of the catastrophe, with many health consequences ongoing in the weeks, months, and years after the event.

First aid, particularly bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), is an important element in the chain of survival. However, little is known about what influences populations to undertake first aid/CPR training, update their training, and use of the training.

The aim of this study was to explore the characteristics of people who have first aid/CPR training, those who have updated their training, and use of these skills.

As part of the 2011 state-wide, computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) survey of people over 18 years of age living in Queensland, Australia, stratified by gender and age group, three questions about first aid training, re-training, and skill uses were explored.

Of the 1,277 respondents, 73.2% reported having undertaken some first aid/CPR training and 39.5% of those respondents had used their first aid/CPR skills. The majority of respondents (56.7%) had not updated their first aid/CPR skills in the past three years, and an additional 2.5% had never updated their skills. People who did not progress beyond year 10 in school and those in lower income groups were less likely to have undertaken first aid/CPR training. Males and people in lower income groups were less likely to have recently updated their first aid/CPR training. People with chronic health problems were in a unique demographic sub-group; they were less likely to have undertaken first aid/CPR training but more likely to have administered first aid/CPR.

Training initiatives that target people on the basis of education level, income group, and the existence of chronic health problems might be one strategy for improving bystander CPR rates when cardiac arrest occurs in the home.

Franklin RC, Watt K, Aitken P, Brown LH, Leggat PA. Characteristics associated with first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation training and use in Queensland, Australia. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(2):155–160

The impact of disasters and large-scale crises continues to increase around the world. To mitigate the potential disasters that confront humanity in the new millennium, an evidence-informed approach to disaster management is needed. This study provides the platform for such an evidence-informed approach by identifying peer-reviewed disaster management publications from 1947 through July 2017.

Peer-reviewed disaster management publications were identified using a comprehensive search of: MEDLINE (US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA); CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services; Ipswich, Massachusetts USA); EMBASE (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands); PsychInfo (American Psychological Association; Washington DC, USA); and the Cochrane Library (The Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford, United Kingdom).

A total of 9,433 publications were identified. The publications were overwhelmingly descriptive (74%) while 18% of publications reported the use of a quantitative methodology and eight percent used qualitative methodologies. Only eight percent of these publications were classified as being high-level evidence. The publications were published in 918 multi-disciplinary journals. The journal Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine; Madison, Wisconsin USA) published the greatest number of disaster-management-related publications (9%). Hurricane Katrina (2005; Gulf Coast USA) had the greatest number of disaster-specific publications, followed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania USA). Publications reporting on the application of objective evaluation tools or frameworks were growing in number.

The “science” of disaster management is spread across more than 900 different multi-disciplinary journals. The existing evidence-base is overwhelmingly descriptive and lacking in objective, post-disaster evaluations.

SmithEC, BurkleFMJr, AitkenP, LeggattP. Seven Decades of Disasters: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(4):418–423

To record the development of liaison psychiatry in the UK and to summarise the current levels of activity. We also highlight the challenges the specialty may face if it is to develop further. History since the 1970s is reviewed by early pioneers and those involved in the present day, with a focus on the key role played by members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

We describe the development of training guidelines, the publication of joint documents with other Royal Colleges, establishing international collaborations and defining service specifications. We emphasise the importance of collaboration with other medical organisations, and describe successes and pitfalls.

Much has been achieved but challenges remain. Liaison psychiatry has a potentially important role in improving patient care. It needs to adapt to the requirements of the current National Health Service, marshal evidence for cost-effectiveness and persuade healthcare commissioners to fund services that are appropriate for the psychological needs of general hospital patients.

The study aim was to undertake a qualitative research literature review to analyze available databases to define, describe, and categorize public health infrastructure (PHI) priorities for tropical cyclone, flood, storm, tornado, and tsunami-related disasters.

Five electronic publication databases were searched to define, describe, or categorize PHI and discuss tropical cyclone, flood, storm, tornado, and tsunami-related disasters and their impact on PHI. The data were analyzed through aggregation of individual articles to create an overall data description. The data were grouped into PHI themes, which were then prioritized on the basis of degree of interdependency.

Sixty-seven relevant articles were identified. PHI was categorized into 13 themes with a total of 158 descriptors. The highest priority PHI identified was workforce. This was followed by water, sanitation, equipment, communication, physical structure, power, governance, prevention, supplies, service, transport, and surveillance.

This review identified workforce as the most important of the 13 thematic areas related to PHI and disasters. If its functionality fails, workforce has the greatest impact on the performance of health services. If addressed post-disaster, the remaining forms of PHI will then be progressively addressed. These findings are a step toward providing an evidence base to inform PHI priorities in the disaster setting. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:598–610)