Emergency Preparedness Among Older Adults in Issaquah, Washington

Presented to the Faculty Of the University of Alaska Anchorage In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF PUBLIC HEALTHUsing the Health Belief Model, this project practicum explored emergency preparedness through interviews with fourteen study participants sixty-five years old or older and three key informants. The goals of this project practicum were to understand the potential needs of adults sixty-five years old and older in an emergency or disaster and to improve the effectiveness of emergency outreach education and messaging. Prior storm experience and reported time living in Issaquah appeared to influence preparedness activity among study participants. Exposure to media and emergency preparedness messaging appeared to have a lesser effect on emergency preparedness activity. Project practicum results suggest that help from neighbors, friends, and family may be the best way to keep vulnerable older adults safe in an emergency or disaster. Thus, these neighbors, friends, and family need to know about emergency preparedness even though it seems to be less effective than life experience. The City of Issaquah appears to be on the right track educating people with its Map Your Neighborhood, Citizen Emergency Response Team training program, and its emergency preparedness booths at community events.Signature Page / Title Page / Abstract / Table of Contents / List of Figures and Appendices / Acknowledgements / Chapter 1: Background and Review of Literature / Chapter 2: Goals and Objectives / Chapter 3: Methods and Analysis / Chapter 4: Results / Chapter 5: Discussion / Chapter 6: Public Health Implications and Recommendations / References / Appendice

The natech events during the 17 August 1999 Kocaeli earthquake: aftermath and lessons learned

Natural-hazard triggered technological accidents (natechs) at industrial facilities have been recognized as an emerging risk. Adequate preparedness, proper emergency planning, and effective response are crucial for the prevention of natechs and mitigation of the consequences. Under the conditions of a natural disaster, the limited resources, the possible unavailability of mitigation measures, and the lack of adequate communication complicate the management of natechs. The analysis of past natechs is crucial for learning lessons and for preventing or preparing for future natechs. The 17 August 1999, Kocaeli earthquake, which was a devastating disaster hitting one of the most industrialized regions of Turkey, offers opportunities in this respect. Among many natechs that occurred due to the earthquake, the massive fire at the TUPRAS Izmit refinery and the acrylonitrile spill at the AKSA acrylic fiber production plant were especially important and highlight problems in the consideration of natechs in emergency planning, response to industrial emergencies during natural hazards, and information to the public during and following the incidents. The analysis of these events shows that even the largest and seemingly well-prepared facilities can be vulnerable to natechs if risks are not considered adequately

Investigating the status of disaster management within a world-wide context: a case study analysis

Disasters can be described as feats of spontaneous occurrences, in that they can happen at any minute at any time. There are two classifications of disasters, which are, natural disasters that cannot be predicted and continuously occur throughout society. While the other classification of disaster is that of man-made disasters, where disasters are caused not by natural phenomena, but by man's or society's actions, involuntary or voluntary, sudden or slow, with grave consequences to the population and the environment (Hays, 2008). Both these types of disasters can be controlled to a certain extent through appropriate disaster management plans and if managed efficiently have the potential to reduce the likelihood of overwhelming loss of lives and property. The Disaster Management cycle is split into four elements of response, recovery, mitigation and preparedness which contribute to emergency protocols of a nation when disaster strikes. Therefore, nations should incorporate them in their development plans and ensure efficient follow-up measures at community, national and international levels. This paper investigates worldwide disasters in order to examine how these disasters were managed and to identify the lessons learned. It provides an analysis of five worldwide case studies of recent disasters (Tsunami in Sri Lanka, Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Earthquake in Pakistan, Summer floods in the UK and Flooding of the West-Link in Northern Ireland) mapping those to the four staged disaster management cycle. The paper analyses in detail the strategies adopted at each stage of the cycle comparing strengths and weaknesses of each case. It concludes that there had been satisfactory progress in both response and recovery phases but more attention is needed for disaster mitigation and preparedness

Investigating the status of disaster management within a world-wide context: a case study analysis

Disasters can be described as feats of spontaneous occurrences, in that they can happen at any minute at any time. There are two classifications of disasters, which are, natural disasters that cannot be predicted and continuously occur throughout society. While the other classification of disaster is that of man-made disasters, where disasters are caused not by natural phenomena, but by man's or society's actions, involuntary or voluntary, sudden or slow, with grave consequences to the population and the environment (Hays, 2008). Both these types of disasters can be controlled to a certain extent through appropriate disaster management plans and if managed efficiently have the potential to reduce the likelihood of overwhelming loss of lives and property. The Disaster Management cycle is split into four elements of response, recovery, mitigation and preparedness which contribute to emergency protocols of a nation when disaster strikes. Therefore, nations should incorporate them in their development plans and ensure efficient follow-up measures at community, national and international levels. This paper investigates worldwide disasters in order to examine how these disasters were managed and to identify the lessons learned. It provides an analysis of five worldwide case studies of recent disasters (Tsunami in Sri Lanka, Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Earthquake in Pakistan, Summer floods in the UK and Flooding of the West-Link in Northern Ireland) mapping those to the four staged disaster management cycle. The paper analyses in detail the strategies adopted at each stage of the cycle comparing strengths and weaknesses of each case. It concludes that there had been satisfactory progress in both response and recovery phases but more attention is needed for disaster mitigation and preparedness

Perceived Ability to Practice in Disaster Management Among Public Health Nurses in Aceh, Indonesia

Background: The increasing number of disaster events around the world has challenged every country to develop better disaster-management strategies. As a part of healthcare system, public health nurses (PHNs) should be involved in caring for people in disasters. Currently, there is no known study whether PHNs of Aceh, Indonesia, working with community people who are at high risk of confronting natural disasters, are able to perform their roles and functions regarding disaster management. Methods: 252 PHNs from twenty-seven public health centers in Aceh were studied during November to December 2010 to evaluate their perceived ability to practice regarding disaster management at each disaster phase: preparedness, response, and recovery phase. The perceived ability to practice was assessed by using the 30-statement, five-point Likert-scale (0-4) of Public Health Nurses' Perceived Ability to Practice Regarding Disaster Management Questionnaire (PHNPP-DMQ). The composite scores of each phase and the total score were calculated and transformed to percentage for ease of presentation across disaster phases.Results: Overall, the PHNs' perceived ability to practice regarding disaster management in Aceh was at a moderate level (M=74.57%, SD=13.27). The highest mean score was for the recovery phase (M=78%), and the lowest mean score was in the preparedness phase (66.15%).Conclusion: The finding of this study evokes challenges to the local government of Aceh province to further prepare PHNs to increase their ability in disaster management

FEMA's Integration of Preparedness and Development of Robust Regional Offices

In October 2006, Congress enacted major legislation to reform the function and organization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in response to the recognized failures in preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) focused national preparedness responsibilities within FEMA and directed additional resources and responsibilities to FEMA's ten regional offices. Directed by Congress, in October 2008 a National Academy Panel began an independent assessment of FEMA's integration of preparedness functions and progress in development of robust regional offices.Main FindingsOver the past three years, FEMA has taken significant steps in an effort to integrate preparedness and develop more robust regional offices. These efforts, undertaken by both the previous and current Administrations, are documented throughout this report and should be recognized and applauded. However, FEMA has yet to define specific goals and outcomes that would permit it, Congress or the public to determine when preparedness has been fully integrated into all aspects of FEMA's work and whether the development and ongoing operation of robust regional offices has been achieved. In the absence of well-defined, measurable outcome indicators, the National Academy Panel relied upon the assessments of FEMA leaders and staff, documentation provided by FEMA, and a review of secondary sources material to inform its findings and recommendations. Based upon this evidence, the Panel has concluded that, while progress has been made: (1) preparedness is not fully integrated across FEMA, (2) FEMA's regional offices do not yet have the capacity required to ensure the nation is fully prepared, (3) stakeholders are not yet full partners with FEMA in national preparedness, and (4) FEMA has ineffective internal business practices, particularly with regard to human resource management. The Panel made seven recommendations for FEMA:Establish a cross-organizational process, with participation from internal and external stakeholders, to develop a shared understanding of preparedness integrationEstablish a robust set of outcome metrics and standards for preparedness integration, as well as a system to monitor and evaluate progress on an ongoing basisWork to eliminate organizational barriers that are adversely impacting the full integration of preparedness across the agencyContinue to build regional office capacity and monitor implementation consistent with the Administrator's recent policy guidanceUndertake steps to improve the ongoing working relationship between headquarters and the regions in accord with Panel-identified principlesTake steps to improve stakeholder engagement and relationships at all levels in accord with Panel-identified principles; andStrengthen internal business practices, especially in the area of human capital planning

Ready or Not? Protecting the Public's Health From Diseases, Disasters, and Bioterrorism, 2008

Examines ten indicators to assess progress in state readiness to respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies. Evaluates the federal government's and hospitals' preparedness. Makes suggestions for funding, restructuring, and other reforms