To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of State and Local Readiness (DSLR), Public Health Emergency Preparedness(PHEP) program funds 62 recipients to strengthen capability standards to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies. Recipients use these PHEP resources in addition to CDC’s administrative and scientific guidance to support preparedness and response program planning and requirements. It is expected that public health agencies develop and maintain comprehensive emergency preparedness and response plans in preparation for disasters such as hurricanes. The 2017 historic hurricane season highlighted how emergency planning and collaborative operational execution is important for public health agencies to effectively prepare for and respond to both the immediate and long-term population health consequences of these disasters. In 2017, the southeastern United States (US) and US Caribbean territories experienced 3 Category 4 or higher Atlantic hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria) within a 5-week period. This paper highlights selected case studies that illustrate the contributions and impact of jurisdictional emergency management planning and operational capacity supported by capability standards during the 2017 hurricane season. Although the magnitude of the 2017 hurricanes required public health officials to seek additional assistance, the following case studies describe the use of public health preparedness systems and recovery resources supported by the PHEP program.
In 2003, a major power outage occurred in the midwest and northeast United States affecting some 50 million people. The power outages affected multiple systems in state and local municipalities and, in turn, affected public health.
Methods:
Semi-structured interviews were conducted using open-ended questionnaires, with a convenience sample of state- and locally selected subject matter experts from Ohio, Michigan, and New York. Respondents were interviewed in groups representing one of five areas of interest, including: (1) emergency preparedness; (2) hospital and emergency medical services; (3) municipal environmental systems; (4) public health surveillance and epidemiology; and (5) psychosocial and behavioral issues. The reported positive and negative impacts of the power outage on public health, medical services, and emergency preparedness and response were documented. Responses were categorized into common themes and recommendations were formulated.
Results:
The amount of time that the respondents' locations were without power ranged from <1 hour to 52 hours. Many common themes emerged from the different locations, including communications failures, alternate power source problems, manpower and training issues, and psychosocial concerns. There was minimal morbidity and mortality reported that could be attributed to the event.
Conclusion:
Power outages negatively impacted multiple municipal infrastructures, and affected medical services, emergency response, and public health efforts. Previous federal funding positively impacted public health and emergency response capabilities. Recommendations were made based upon the common themes identified by the respondents.
Recommendations may assist state and local health departments, medical service providers, and emergency responders in planning for future power outage problems.
Define the mortality associated with extremely hot weather during the 04 July through 14 July, 1993 heat wave that struck the northeastern United States.
Methods:
Design — A rapid field assessment was used to compare mortality occurring during the heat wave to mortality occurring during a period in which there was no heat wave using copies of death certificates, The findings of the rapid field assessment were validated, and it was determined whether increases in mortality occurred in other metropolitan east-coast counties also affected by the heat wave, by reviewing computerized mortality files.
Setting — Information was collected on all deaths occurring in Baltimore City, Maryland; Baltimore County, Maryland; Essex County, New Jersey; Newcastle County, Delaware; and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania; during these specified study periods: 08 – 18 June (comparison period) and 06 – 16 July (heat wave study period), 1993.
Main Outcome Measures — Ratios for total mortality, cause-specific mortality, and variables such as age, sex, race, residence, and day and place of death, that were available fiom death certificates were calculated.
Results:
From the rapid field assessment, the following were observed: a 26% increase in total mortality and a 98% increase in cardiovascular mortality associated with the heat wave in Philadelphia. Data from the computerized mortality files showed an increase in total mortality in four of five counties examined and an increase in cardiovascular mortality in all five counties. The risk for death for those dying from cardiovascular disease increased significantly for people older than 64 years, for both sexes, and all races.
Conclusion:
As initially indicated by the Philadelphia Medical Examiner, there was excess mortality associated with a heat wave in Philadelphia. All other nearby counties examined also experienced excess mortality associated with the heat wave, although this excess was not recognized by the local health officials. The true impact of a heat wave that causes excess preventable mortality must be appropriately and rapidly ascertained. Using a national standard to certify a death as heat-related will provide the needed information rapidly so that public health resources can be more effectively allocated and mobilized to prevent further heat-related illnesses and death.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.