Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:31:06.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

H1N1: Communication Patterns among Emergency Department Staff during the H1N1 Outbreak, April 2009

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Kelly R. Klein*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
Hillary Cohen
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
Cindy Baseluos
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
John Marshall
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
Antonios Likourezos
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
Ashika Jain
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
Steven Davidson
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, 4802 10th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11219, USA E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Introduction:

The H1N1 influenza virus has been described by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the media as a disease that could rival the 1918 Spanish Influenza epidemic in deaths. During the spring of 2009, emergency departments across the world saw a spike in the number of influenza cases and by June 2009, the WHO had declared H1N1 a pandemic. In order to prevent emergency department staff from becoming ill and to provide upto-date medical care to patients, information had to be disseminated quickly to emergency department staff.

Methods:

An anonymous Internet survey was utilized to query emergency department staff regarding communication methods and overall attitudes regarding safety and treatment during the spring of 2009.

Results:

The majority of emergency department staff (263; 88.3%) used multiple sources to obtain information about the H1N1 virus. There were 258 respondents (88.9%) that felt that the hospital was supplying them with the necessary information to protect themselves and their families and 280 (98.5%) felt confident that their emergency department was treating patients by the government-recommended guidelines. Statistically significant differences were noted in communication patterns between direct and indirect patient care providers.

Conclusions:

In general, H1N1 communication to emergency department staff was perceived as good during the initial H1N1 outbreak. However, because of the limitations associated with an online survey, these results do not allow for generalization to the total emergency department staff population. Hospital administrators may need to consider the differences in communication preferences of direct patient care providers and indirect patient care providers when distributing important information to emergency department staff during crisis and emergency situations.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2010

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.WHO Global Influenza Programme: Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response: A WHO guidance document. Available at http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/PIPGuidance09.pdf. Accessed 02 October, 2009.Google Scholar
2.Garrett, L: The American Bicentennial. In:The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994, pp 156158.Google Scholar
3.WHO: Influenza A (H1N1) Update 46. Available at http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_06_10a/en/index.html. Accessed 24 September 2009.Google Scholar
4.Weekly Influenza Surveillance Update: Archive of weekly influenza surveillance update. Available at http://nyc.gov/html/doh/html/imm/immpinfo.shtml#sur. Accessed 24 September 2009.Google Scholar
5.Geibelhause, E: Fall Influenza Planning: A Briefing on Citywide Planning Efforts. NYC Office of Emergency Management Public/Private Initiatives Conference Call. 17 September, 2009.Google Scholar
6.Fine, PE: Herd immunity: History, theory, practice. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:265302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.WHO: Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response (EPR): Pandemic preparedness. Available at www.who.int/cr/disease/influenza/pandemic/en/. Accessed 17 October 2009.Google Scholar
8.Booth, CM, Stewart, TE: Communication and the Toronto critical care community: Important lessons learned during SARS. Crit Care 2003;7(6):405406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Chaffee, MW: Making the decision to report to work in a disaster: Nurses may have conflicting obligations. Am J Nurs 2006;106:5457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Smith, E: Emergency health care workers' willingness to work during major emergencies and disasters. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management 2007;22(2):2124.Google Scholar
11.Qureshi, K, Gershon, RRM, Sherman, MF, Straub, T, Gebbie, E, McCollum, M, Erwin, MJ, Morse, SS: Health care workers' ability and willingness to report to duty during catastrophic disasters. J Urban Health 2005;82(3):378388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Davidson, JE, Sekayan, A, Agan, D, Good, L, Shaw, D, Smilde, R: Disaster dilemma: Factors affecting decision to come to work during a natural disaster. Adv Emerg Nurs J 2009;31:248257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Glass, TA, Schock-Spana, M: Bioterrorism and the people: How to vaccinate a city against panic. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:217223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Covello, VT, Peters, RG, Wojtecki, JG, Hyde, RC: Risk communication, the West Nile Virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: Responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health 2001;76(2):382391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Ehrenstein, BP, Hanses, F, Salzberger, B: Influenza pandemic and professional duty: Family or patients first? A qualitative survey of hospital employees. BMC Public Health 2006;6:311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Ives, J, Greenfield, S, Parry, JM, Draper, H, Gratus, C, Petts, JI, Sorell, T, Wilson, S: Healthcare workers' attitudes to working during pandemic influenza: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/56. Accessed 23 September 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Qureshi, K, Gershon, RRM, Sherma, MF, Straub, T, Gebbie, E, McCollum, M, Erwin, MJ, Morse, SS: Healthcare workers ability and willingness to report to duty during catastrophic disasters. J Urban Health 2005;82(3):378388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Shiao, JSC, Koh, D, Lo, LH, Lim, MK, Gui, YL: Factors predicting nurses' consideration of leaving their job during the SARS outbreak. Nurs Ethics 2007;14(1):117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Tzeng, HM: Nurses professional care obligation and their attitudes towards SARS infection control measures in Taiwan during and after the 2003 epidemic. Nurs Ethics 2004;11:277289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Booth, CM, Stewart, TE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome and critical medicine: The Toronto experience. Crit Care Med 2005;33(1):s53–s60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.WHO: Outbreak communication, Best practices for communication with the public during and outbreak. Report of the WHO expert consultation on outbreak communications. Singapore, 21-23 September 2004.Google Scholar
22.Auf der Heide, E: Disaster Response: Principles of preparation and coordination. St. Louis: CV Mosby, Chapter 10.Google Scholar
23.Eighth www user survey. 1997. Available at http://www.guv.gatech.edu/user_survey/survey-1997-10. Accessed 17 September 2002.Google Scholar