Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T21:42:56.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increasing Perceived Emergency Preparedness by Participatory Policy-Making (Think-Tanks)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2018

Bruria Adini ,
Avi Israeli ,
Moran Bodas  and
Kobi Peleg
Bruria Adini*
Affiliation:
Department of Disasters and Emergency Management, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Avi Israeli
Affiliation:
Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel Hadassah, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Moran Bodas
Affiliation:
Department of Disasters and Emergency Management, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Kobi Peleg
Affiliation:
Department of Disasters and Emergency Management, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel The National Center for Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research, The Gertner Institute for Health Policy and Epidemiology, Tel-Hashomer, Israel
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Bruria Adini, Department of Disaster Management & Injury Prevention, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, 6997801, Israel (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The study aimed to examine impact of think-tanks designed to create policies for emerging threats on medical teams’ perceptions of individual and systemic emergency preparedness.

Methods

Multi-professional think-tanks were established to design policies for potential attacks on civilian communities. In total, 59 multi-sector health care managers participated in think-tanks focused on: (a) primary care services in risk zones; (b) hospital care; (c) casualty evacuation policies; (d) medical services to special-needs populations; and (e) services in a “temporary military-closed zone.” Participants rotated systematically between think-tanks. Perceived individual and systemic emergency preparedness was reviewed pre-post participation in think-tanks.

Results

A significant increase in perceived emergency preparedness pre-post-think-tanks was found in 8/10 elements including in perceived individual role proficiency (3.71±0.67 vs 4.60±0.53, respectively; P<0.001) and confidence in colleagues’ proficiency during crisis (3.56±0.75 vs 4.37±0.61, respectively; P<0.001). Individual preparedness and role perception correlates with systemic preparedness and proficiency in risk assessment.

Conclusions

Participation in policy-making impacts on individuals’ perceptions of empowerment including trust in colleagues’ capacities, but does not increase confidence in a system’s preparedness. Field and managerial officials should be involved in policy-making processes, as a means to empower health care managers and improve interfaces and self-efficacy that are relevant to preparedness and response for crises. (Disaster Med Public Health Prepardness. 2019;13:152–157)

Keywords

Think-tanksemergency preparednesshealth policycommunity health planninghealth care facilitiesmanpower and services
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 152 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Gunaratna, R. Current and emerging threat of terrorism in South Asia. Pakistan J Criminol. 2013;5(2):115-126.Google Scholar
2. Connolly, M. Health service support in the future operating environment 2035. J R Army Med Corps. 2015;161:32-35.Google Scholar
3. McEntire, D. An evaluation of risk management and emergency management. Relying on the concept of comprehensive vulnerability management for an integrated perspective. In: Urbano Fra. Paleo, ed. Risk Governance. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015:201-210.Google Scholar
4. Prenger-Berninghoff, K, Cortes, V, Sprague, T, et al. The connection between long-term and short-term risk management strategies for flood and landslide hazards: examples from land-use planning and emergency management in four European case studies. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 2014;14:3261-3278.Google Scholar
5. Adini, B, Peleg, K. On constant alert: lessons to be learned from Israel’s emergency response to mass-casualty terrorism incidents. Health Aff. 2013;32(12):2179-2185.Google Scholar
6. Adini, B, Cohen, R, Laor, D, Israeli, A. Can patient flow be effectively controlled? Health Policy Planning. 2011;26(6):518-525.Google Scholar
7. Adini, B, Aharonson-Daniel, L, Israeli, A. Load Index Model: an advanced tool to support decision-making during mass casualty incidents. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;78(3):622-627.Google Scholar
8. Coetzee, C, Van Niekerk, D, Raju, E. Disaster resilience and complex adaptive systems theory. Disaster Prev Manag. 2016;25(2):196-211.Google Scholar
9. Peleg, K, Kellermann, A. Enhancing hospital surge capacity for mass casualty events. JAMA. 2009;302(5):565-567.Google Scholar
10. Nohrstedt, D. Does adaptive capacity influence service delivery? Evidence from Swedish Emergency Management Collaborations. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17(5):718-735.Google Scholar
11. Bodas, M, Siman-Tov, M, Kreitler, S, Peleg, K. Assessment of emergency preparedness of households in Israel for war—current status. Disaster Med Public Health Prepared. 2015;9(4):382-390.Google Scholar
12. Liu, B, Roberts, H, Petrun Sayers, E, Ackerman, G, Smith, D, Iles, I. Preparing for the worst: public perceptions of risk management innovations. J Risk Res. 2017;20(11):1394-1417.Google Scholar
13. Arbon, P, Ranse, J, Cusack, L, et al. Australasian emergency nurses’ willingness to attend work in a disaster: a survey. Australasian Emerg Nurs J. 2013;16(2):52-57.Google Scholar
14. Park, U, Behrouz-Ghayebi, L, Sury, J. Do shared barriers when reporting to work during an influenza pandemic influence hospital workers’ willingness to work? A multilevel framework. Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:175-185.Google Scholar
15. Aoyagi, Y, Beck, C, Dingwall, R, Nguyen-Van-Tam, J. Healthcare workers’ willingness to work during an influenza pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2015;9(3):120-130.Google Scholar
16. Wong, C, Stern, S, Mitchel, S. Survey of Ebola preparedness in Washington State Emergency Departments. Disaster Med Public Heath Preparedness. 2016;10(4):662-668.Google Scholar
17. Jarman, A, Kouzmin, A. Public sector think tanks in interagency policy-making: designing enhanced governance capacity. Can Public Admin. 1993;36(4):499-529.Google Scholar
18. Pautz, H. Managing the crisis? Think-tanks and the British response to global financial crisis and great recession. Crit Policy Stud. 2017;11(2):191-210.Google Scholar
19. Lingard, B. Think Tanks, ‘policy experts’ and ‘ideas for’ education policy making in Australia. Aust Educ Res. 2016;43:15-33.Google Scholar
20. Xia, C, Qian, C. Research on the participation of the Folk Think-Tanks in Chinese government policy. Can Soc Sci. 2014;10(4):125-129.Google Scholar