ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/elearn/ehter.htm) and other training. » Local emergency planning committees (LEPCs)—the EPH workforce needs to be at the table. » Rapid response teams (RRTs)—the EPH workforce is at the table. » Policy statement from NEHA on pre- paredness to show the added value of the EPH workforce (www.neha.org/Images/ resources/NEHA-Policy-Statement-EH- Role-Preparedness-Final-Nov-2021.pdf). » Important role of social services (e.g., woman, infant, and children [WIC] services; services for older adults and people with disabilities). These ser- vices are already embedded in commu- nities and can convey key preparedness messages to individuals and assist with disaster recovery. » Important role of NGOs: These orga- nizations represent local voices and vulnerable groups and communicate needs to government emergency services at all levels, including representation of economic interests (e.g., tourism). • Leverage faculty and university resources in coordination to improve preparedness, response, and recovery activities. Both state and local emergency preparedness can expand capacity by communicating gaps and needs to academia. » Universities often have the perspective and training to design projects that will benefit the local EPH workforce. » Universities often have the resources to provide training. » University faculty do important research on technology and platforms that bene- fit all sectors (e.g., drones, environmen- tal sampling). • Leverage NGOs/VOADs to improve pre- paredness, response, and recovery activi- ties. As possible, build relationships with local organizations that deliver critical services or represent vulnerable groups to enhance preparedness and define a system for communication and working together during a disaster. This work can enhance the response through predefined roles and processes, and hopefully mini- mize confusion. •Increase grants to local agencies from states to enhance emergency prepared- ness. Such leadership from the state level
could ensure consistency, standardiza- tion, and interoperability of local pre- paredness within states. This work was recently accomplished in Illinois where funding to address the following was made available: » State grants to facilitate coordination and equipment sharing. » State grants to ensure software and com- munications are synchronized across the state. » State-funded regional coalitions that support relationship building and trust at the local level. • Improve and standardize communication. From a common lexicon and awareness of processes to the technology that supports ecient and timely detection, response, coordination, and after-action review of disasters, clear communication is critical. Federal systems that can be accessed by all might be an avenue for true standardiza- tion; in their absence, reviewing interop- erability for dierent scenarios can help identify issues. • Grant deliverables should include EPH capabilities in clear, succinct language. » Federal grants (e.g., Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, SAFE- COM Aviation Safety Communiqué, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fed- eral Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]) exist to improve emergency communications. » Create a clearinghouse or centralized information center. Knowing the loca- tion of resources is key but many exist behind silo walls. » Local knowledge sharing is key to multi- sector collaboration. Make sure the local EPH workforce is included in applicable communications. • Improve plans. Too frequently, multiple plans that address overlapping scenarios or hazards exist and can create a fragmented, confusing, or incomplete disaster response. As key entities and individuals identify one another and begin to meet regularly, they must begin an ongoing inventory, revision, and updating of plans. » Local response plans are needed that integrate with the state and federal agen- cies and other sectors. An example given during the panel was of a local EPH department that was not able to work
with their state counterparts on EPH issues during a disaster. » Recommend that senior-level health leaders in critical sectors complete ICS and National Incident Management System (NIMS) training from FEMA (https://training.fema.gov/nims/). » Review plans regularly to make them rel- evant to current threats. » Strive to maintain relationships that were newly formed during the COVID-19 response. Many relationships between EPH and other sectors of public health, healthcare delivery, and preparedness were built during the COVID-19 pandemic. • Increasing and enhancing training could provide a common body of knowledge and vocabulary to EPH sta to enable them to engage more eectively in preparedness and response teams. Preparedness is a core public health service and requires a trained and respected cadre of EPH professionals to contribute their expertise to multi- agency teams. » EPH sta who could become involved in disaster response and recovery should have initial and refresher (i.e., continu- ing education) trainings. » Training EPH leadership using fire and hazardous materials (HAZMAT) instruc- tors has proven to be an eective way to get EPH on the same page as fire and HAZMAT professionals who are often incident commanders during an event or disaster. » Real scenarios are needed for training exercises to be eective. » Propose creating an EPH-specific ICS 300 and 400, possibly through NEHA, that could be oered at the NEHA AEC and other venues. » Create training for non-EPH partners on the roles and responsibilities of EPH in disasters. This training could be an amended EHTER course for these partners. Conclusion The panel discussion held at the NEHA 2022 AEC highlighted the unique challenges faced by EPH practitioners in the preparedness arena. A recurring theme is the challenge of technology incompatibilities, as well as the challenge of getting EPH professionals, fire departments, and EMS to regularly com-
44
Volume 86 • Number 2
Powered by FlippingBook