In the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there were shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and health-care personnel across severely affected regions. Along with a lack of testing, these shortages delayed surveillance, and possible containment of the virus. The pandemic also took unprecedented tolls on the mental health of many health-care workers who treated and witnessed the deaths of critically ill patients. To address these effects and prepare for a potential second wave, a literature review was performed on the response of health-care systems during the influenza pandemics of 1918, 1957, 2009, and the epidemics of Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We can use lessons identified to develop a competent and effective response to the current and future pandemics. The public must continue to engage in proper health mitigation strategies, including use of face coverings, physical distancing, and hand washing. The impact the pandemic has had on the mental health of frontline health-care workers cannot be disregarded as it is essential in ensuring effective patient care and mitigating psychological comorbidities. The lessons identified from past public health crises can help contain and limit morbidity and mortality with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Social media is becoming the first source of information and also the first way to communicate messages. Because social media users will take action based on the information they are seeing, it is important that organizations like the Red Cross be active in the social space. We describe the American Red Cross’s concept for a Digital Operations Center (DigiDOC) that we believe should become an essential part of all emergency operations centers and a key piece of all agencies that operate in disasters. The American Red Cross approach is a practical and logical approach that other agencies can use as a model.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;8:445-451)

Objective: The Advisory Council of the American Red Cross Disaster Services requested that an independent study determine whether first-aid providers without professional mental health training, when confronted with people who have experienced a traumatic event, offer a “safe, effective and feasible intervention.”

Methods: Standard databases were searched by an expert panel from 1990 to September 2010 using the keyword phrase “psychological first aid.” Documents were included if the process was referred to as care provided to victims, first responders, or volunteers and excluded if it was not associated with a disaster or mass casualty event, or was used after individual nondisaster traumas such as rape and murder. This search yielded 58 citations.

Results: It was determined that adequate scientific evidence for psychological first aid is lacking but widely supported by expert opinion and rational conjecture. No controlled studies were found. There is insufficient evidence supporting a treatment standard or a treatment guideline.

Conclusion: Sufficient evidence for psychological first aid is widely supported by available objective observations and expert opinion and best fits the category of “evidence informed” but without proof of effectiveness. An intervention provided by volunteers without professional mental health training for people who have experienced a traumatic event offers an acceptable option. Further outcome research is recommended.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:247–252)

Background: Various organizations and universities have developed competencies for health professionals and other emergency responders. Little effort has been devoted to the integration of these competencies across health specialties and professions. The American Medical Association Center for Public Health Preparedness and Disaster Response convened an expert working group (EWG) to review extant competencies and achieve consensus on an educational framework and competency set from which educators could devise learning objectives and curricula tailored to fit the needs of all health professionals in a disaster.

Methods: The EWG conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and non–peer reviewed published literature. In addition, after-action reports from Hurricane Katrina and relevant publications recommended by EWG members and other subject matter experts were reviewed for congruencies and gaps. Consensus was ensured through a 3-stage Delphi process.

Results: The EWG process developed a new educational framework for disaster medicine and public health preparedness based on consensus identification of 7 core learning domains, 19 core competencies, and 73 specific competencies targeted at 3 broad health personnel categories.

Conclusions: The competencies can be applied to a wide range of health professionals who are expected to perform at different levels (informed worker/student, practitioner, leader) according to experience, professional role, level of education, or job function. Although these competencies strongly reflect lessons learned following the health system response to Hurricane Katrina, it must be understood that preparedness is a process, and that these competencies must be reviewed continually and refined over time. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:57–68)

Mass casualty triage is the process of prioritizing multiple victims when resources are not sufficient to treat everyone immediately. No national guideline for mass casualty triage exists in the United States. The lack of a national guideline has resulted in variability in triage processes, tags, and nomenclature. This variability has the potential to inject confusion and miscommunication into the disaster incident, particularly when multiple jurisdictions are involved. The Model Uniform Core Criteria for Mass Casualty Triage were developed to be a national guideline for mass casualty triage to ensure interoperability and standardization when responding to a mass casualty incident. The Core Criteria consist of 4 categories: general considerations, global sorting, lifesaving interventions, and individual assessment of triage category. The criteria within each of these categories were developed by a workgroup of experts representing national stakeholder organizations who used the best available science and, when necessary, consensus opinion. This article describes how the Model Uniform Core Criteria for Mass Casualty Triage were developed.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:129-137)

The incident command system provides an organizational structure at the agency, discipline, or jurisdiction level for effectively coordinating response and recovery efforts during most conventional disasters. This structure does not have the capacity or capability to manage the complexities of a large-scale health-related disaster, especially a pandemic, in which unprecedented decisions at every level (eg, surveillance, triage protocols, surge capacity, isolation, quarantine, health care staffing, deployment) are necessary to investigate, control, and prevent transmission of disease. Emerging concepts supporting a unified decision-making, coordination, and resource management system through a health-specific emergency operations center are addressed and the potential structure, function, roles, and responsibilities are described, including comparisons across countries with similar incident command systems. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1:135–141)

Mass casualty triage is a critical skill. Although many systems exist to guide providers in making triage decisions, there is little scientific evidence available to demonstrate that any of the available systems have been validated. Furthermore, in the United States there is little consistency from one jurisdiction to the next in the application of mass casualty triage methodology. There are no nationally agreed upon categories or color designations. This review reports on a consensus committee process used to evaluate and compare commonly used triage systems, and to develop a proposed national mass casualty triage guideline. The proposed guideline, entitled SALT (sort, assess, life-saving interventions, treatment and/or transport) triage, was developed based on the best available science and consensus opinion. It incorporates aspects from all of the existing triage systems to create a single overarching guide for unifying the mass casualty triage process across the United States. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S25–S34)

Background: A prevalent assumption in hospital emergency preparedness planning is that patient arrival from a disaster scene will occur through a coordinated system of patient distribution based on the number of victims, capabilities of the receiving hospitals, and the nature and severity of illness or injury. In spite of the strength of the emergency medical services system, case reports in the literature and major incident after-action reports have shown that most patients who present at a health care facility after a disaster or other major emergency do not necessarily arrive via ambulance. If these reports of arrival of patients outside an organized emergency medical services system are accurate, then hospitals should be planning differently for the impact of an unorganized influx of patients on the health care system. Hospitals need to consider alternative patterns of patient referral, including the mass convergence of self-referred patients, when performing major incident planning.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of published studies from the past 25 years to identify reports of patient care during disasters or major emergency incidents that described the patients' method of arrival at the hospital. Using a structured mechanism, we aggregated and analyzed the data.

Results: Detailed data on 8303 patients from more than 25 years of literature were collected. Many reports suggest that only a fraction of the patients who are treated in emergency departments following disasters arrive via ambulance, particularly in the early postincident stages of an event. Our 25 years of aggregate data suggest that only 36% of disaster victims are transported to hospitals via ambulance, whereas 63% use alternate means to seek emergency medical care.

Conclusions: Hospitals should evaluate their emergency plans to consider the implications of alternate referral patterns of patients during a disaster. Additional consideration should be given to mass triage, site security, and the potential need for decontamination after a major incident.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2010;4:226-231)