Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:33:31.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Consensus Process on the Use of Exercises and After Action Reports to Assess and Improve Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2013

Elena Savoia ,
Jessica Preston  and
Paul D. Biddinger
Elena Savoia*
Affiliation:
Division of Policy Translation and Leadership Development, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts USA
Jessica Preston
Affiliation:
Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center, Department of Society Health and Human Development, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts USA
Paul D. Biddinger
Affiliation:
Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center, Department of Society Health and Human Development, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts USA Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts USA
*
Correspondence: Elena Savoia, MD, MPH Division of Policy Translation and Leadership Development Harvard School of Public Health 401 Park Drive Boston, MA 02115 USA E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

The objective of disaster preparedness is to ensure that appropriate systems, procedures, and resources are in place to provide prompt, effective assistance to disaster victims, thus facilitating relief measures and rehabilitation of services. Disaster preparedness efforts include the identification of possible health scenarios based on the probability of hazards and vulnerability of the population as a basis for creating a disaster plan. Exercises that simulate emergency response, involving the health and other sectors, have been suggested as useful tools to test the plans on a regular basis and measure preparedness efforts; the absence of actual testing is likely to negate even the best of abstract plans.

Problem

Exercises and after action reports (AARs) are used to document preparedness activities. However, to date, limited analysis has been performed on what makes an exercise an effective tool to assess public health emergency preparedness (PHEP), and how AARs can be developed and used to support PHEP improvement efforts. The scope of this project was to achieve consensus on: (1) what makes an exercise an effective tool to assess PHEP; and (2) what makes an AAR an effective tool to guide PHEP improvement efforts.

Methods

Sixty-one PHEP experts were convened by the use of Nominal Group Techniques to achieve consensus on a series of characteristics that exercises should have when designed to assess PHEP and on the recommendations for developing high-quality AARs.

Results

The panelists achieved consensus on a list of recommendations to improve the use of exercises and AARs in PHEP improvement efforts. Such recommendations ranged from the characteristics of the exercise audience to the evaluation methodology being used and the characteristics of the produced AAR such as its structure and content.

Conclusions

The characteristics of the exercise audience, scenario and scope are among the most important attributes to the effectiveness of an exercise conducted for PHEP evaluation purposes. The evaluation instruments used to gather observations need an appropriate matching between exercise objectives and the response capabilities tested during the exercise, to build the base for the production of a good AAR. Improvements in the design and creation of exercises and AARs could facilitate better reporting and measurement of preparedness outcomes.

SavoiaE, PrestonJ, BiddingerPD. A Consensus Process on the Use of Exercises and After Action Reports to Assess and Improve Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(3):1-4.

Keywords

after action reportsemergency preparednessexercisesquality improvement
Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 305 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2013 

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.De Ville de Goyet, C, Monje, HP, Poncelet, JL , et al. Natural Disasters: Protecting the Public's Health. http://new.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2010/9275115753.pdf. Published 2000. 17.Google Scholar
2.Donahue, AK, Tuohy, RV. Lessons we don't learn: a study of the lessons of disasters, why we repeat them and how we can learn them. Homeland Security Affairs. 2(2). http://www.hsaj.org/?article=2.2.4. Published July 2006. Accessed August 23, 2012.Google Scholar
3.Kahn, AS. Public health preparedness and response in the USA since 9/11: a national health security imperative. Lancet. 2011;378(9794):953-956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Seid, M, Lotstein, D, Williams, VL, et al. Quality improvement in public health emergency preparedness. Annu Rev of Public Health. 2007;28:19-31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Nelson, C, Lurie, N, Wasserman, J. Assessing public health emergency preparedness: concepts, tools, and challenges. Annu Rev of Public Health. 2007;28:1-18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Stoto, MA, Nelson, CD, and the LAMPS investigators. Measuring and Assessing Public Health Emergency Preparedness: A Methodological Primer.Working paper. Boston, May 2012. http://lamps.sph.harvard.edu/images/stories/Stoto_Nelson_etal_MeasuringandAssessingPublicHealthEmergencyPreparedness_July2012.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2012.Google Scholar
7.Savoia, E, Agboola, F, Biddinger, PD. Use of after action reports (AARs) to promote organizational and systems learning in emergency preparedness. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(8):2949-2963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gaining Consensus Among Stakeholders Through the Nominal Group Technique. Evaluation Briefs, 2006: No. 7. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief7.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2013.Google Scholar
9.Delbecq, AL, VandeVen, AH, Gustafson, DH. Group Techniques for Program Planners. Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman and Company; 1975.Google Scholar