Every society is exposed periodically to catastrophes and public health emergencies that are broad in scale. Too often, these experiences reveal major deficits in the quality of emergency response. A critical barrier to achieving preparedness for high-quality, system-based emergency response is the absence of a universal framework and common language to guide the pursuit of that goal. We describe a simple but comprehensive framework to encourage a focused conversation to improve preparedness for the benefit of individuals, families, organizations, communities, and society as a whole. We propose that constructs associated with the well-known expression “ready, willing, and able” represent necessary and sufficient elements for a standardized approach to ensure high-quality emergency response across the disparate entities that make up the public health emergency preparedness system. The “ready, willing, and able” constructs are described and specific applications are offered to illustrate the broad applicability and heuristic value of the model. Finally, prospective steps are outlined for initiating and advancing a dialogue that may directly lead to or inform already existing efforts to develop quality standards, measures, guidance, and (potentially) a national accreditation program.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2010;4:161-168)

Objectives: It has been estimated that up to 90% of the US population is exposed to at least 1 traumatic event during their lifetime. Although there is growing evidence that most people are resilient, meaning that they have the ability to adapt to or rebound from adversity, between 5% and 10% of individuals exposed to traumatic events meet criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder. Therefore, identifying the elements of resilience could lead to interventions or training programs designed to enhance resilience. In this article, we test the hypothesis that the effects of stressor conditions on outcomes such as job-related variables may be mediated through the cognitive and affective registrations of those events, conceptualized as subjective stress arousal.

Methods: The subjects were 491 individuals employed in public accounting, who were sampled from a mailing list provided by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The stressors used in this study were role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload and the outcome measures were performance, turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and burnout. Stress arousal was measured using a previously developed stress arousal scale. We conducted a series of 2 EQS structural modeling analyses to assess the impact of stress arousal. The first model examined only the direct effects from the role stressors to the outcome constructs. The second model inserted stress arousal as a mediator in the relations between the role stressors and the outcomes.

Results: The results of our investigation supported the notion that subjective stress arousal provides greater explanatory clarity by mediating the effects of stressors upon job-related outcome. Including stress arousal in the model provided a much more comprehensive understanding of the relation between stressor and outcomes, and the contribution of role ambiguity and role conflict were better explained.

Conclusions: By understanding these relations, anticipatory guidance and crisis intervention programs can be designed and implemented to enhance human resilience. These data could serve to improve training programs for these “at risk” professional groups or even the population as a whole.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:98–105)

While information for the medical aspects of disaster surge is increasingly available, there is little guidance for health care facilities on how to manage the psychological aspects of large-scale disasters that might involve a surge of psychological casualties. In addition, no models are available to guide the development of training curricula to address these needs. This article describes 2 conceptual frameworks to guide hospitals and clinics in managing such consequences. One framework was developed to understand the antecedents of psychological effects or “psychological triggers” (restricted movement, limited resources, limited information, trauma exposure, and perceived personal or family risk) that cause the emotional, behavioral, and cognitive reactions following large-scale disasters. Another framework, adapted from the Donabedian quality of care model, was developed to guide appropriate disaster response by health care facilities in addressing the consequences of reactions to psychological triggers. This framework specifies structural components (internal organizational structure and chain of command, resources and infrastructure, and knowledge and skills) that should be in place before an event to minimize consequences. The framework also specifies process components (coordination with external organizations, risk assessment and monitoring, psychological support, and communication and information sharing) to support evidence-informed interventions.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:73-80)

Introduction: Paramedics play an integral role in the response to and management of disasters and mass casualty events. Providing a core component of the front line response to disasters, paramedics potentially expose themselves to a variety of health and safety risks, including physical injury, death, communicable disease, and psychological effects. The health and safety risks to emergency service personnel were highlighted by the deaths of firefighters, paramedics, and police during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the infection, illness, and deaths of paramedics and emergency health care staff during the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003.

Objective: Given that a willing and able prehospital workforce is a vital component of any successful response to a disaster situation, the present study explored paramedics' perception of risk and willingness to work, with a specific focus on identifying which type of disasters that paramedics associate with greater levels of fear, familiarity, and risk.

Methods: A total of 175 paramedics completed a survey ranking 40 disaster scenarios for levels of fear and familiarity.

Results: The results indicate that paramedics ranked nuclear and radiological events and outbreaks of new and highly infectious disasters highest for fear and unfamiliarity. This has implications for preparedness, education, and training.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:46-53)