TY - JOUR
T1 - Are We Ready for Mass Fatality Incidents? Preparedness of the US Mass Fatality Infrastructure
AU - Merrill, Jacqueline A.
AU - Orr, Mark
AU - Chen, Daniel Y.
AU - Zhi, Qi
AU - Gershon, Robyn R.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors are grateful to the following individuals who graciously shared their expert advice: Ms Cynthia Gavin, Dr Kathleen M. Carley, Mr John Nesler, Ms Allison Woody, Dr Jason Wiersema, Ms Emily Carroll, Mr Frank DePaolo, Dr Suzanne Utley, Dr Lisa LaPoint, Dr John Fudenberg, Mr Robert Fells, Ms Lesley Witter, Ms Deana Gillespie, Ms Lori Cascaden, Ms Carmela Hinderacker, Ms Malaya Fletcher, Dr Naveena Bobba, Mr Andrew Roszak, Ms Resham Patel, Mr David Zane, Ms Lynne Bratka, Mr Peter Gudaitis, Ms Dawn Shiley, Dr Elin Gursky, Mr Edward Kilbane, and Mr Kevin Sheehan. We also thank Dr Martin Sherman, Ms Halley Riley, Ms Tara McAlexander, and Ms Denise McNally for their input in questionnaire development. We are also deeply appreciative of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials; the National Association of County and City Health Officials; the National Association of Medical Examiners; the International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners; the International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association; the National Funeral Directors Association; the International Association of Emergency Managers; and the National Disaster Interfaiths Network for their assistance in questionnaire development and distribution and participant recruitment. A special note of thanks to the study participants for their enthusiastic participation in the various aspects of this study. This study was funded by a grant (CMMI-1233673) provided by the National Science Foundation.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2015.
PY - 2016/2/1
Y1 - 2016/2/1
N2 - Objective To assess the preparedness of the US mass fatality infrastructure, we developed and tested metrics for 3 components of preparedness: organizational, operational, and resource sharing networks. Methods In 2014, data were collected from 5 response sectors: medical examiners and coroners, the death care industry, health departments, faith-based organizations, and offices of emergency management. Scores were calculated within and across sectors and a weighted score was developed for the infrastructure. Results A total of 879 respondents reported highly variable organizational capabilities: 15% had responded to a mass fatality incident (MFI); 42% reported staff trained for an MFI, but only 27% for an MFI involving hazardous contaminants. Respondents estimated that 75% of their staff would be willing and able to respond, but only 53% if contaminants were involved. Most perceived their organization as somewhat prepared, but 13% indicated not at all. Operational capability scores ranged from 33% (death care industry) to 77% (offices of emergency management). Network capability analysis found that only 42% of possible reciprocal relationships between resource-sharing partners were present. The cross-sector composite score was 51%; that is, half the key capabilities for preparedness were in place. Conclusions The sectors in the US mass fatality infrastructure report suboptimal capability to respond. National leadership is needed to ensure sector-specific and infrastructure-wide preparedness for a large-scale MFI.
AB - Objective To assess the preparedness of the US mass fatality infrastructure, we developed and tested metrics for 3 components of preparedness: organizational, operational, and resource sharing networks. Methods In 2014, data were collected from 5 response sectors: medical examiners and coroners, the death care industry, health departments, faith-based organizations, and offices of emergency management. Scores were calculated within and across sectors and a weighted score was developed for the infrastructure. Results A total of 879 respondents reported highly variable organizational capabilities: 15% had responded to a mass fatality incident (MFI); 42% reported staff trained for an MFI, but only 27% for an MFI involving hazardous contaminants. Respondents estimated that 75% of their staff would be willing and able to respond, but only 53% if contaminants were involved. Most perceived their organization as somewhat prepared, but 13% indicated not at all. Operational capability scores ranged from 33% (death care industry) to 77% (offices of emergency management). Network capability analysis found that only 42% of possible reciprocal relationships between resource-sharing partners were present. The cross-sector composite score was 51%; that is, half the key capabilities for preparedness were in place. Conclusions The sectors in the US mass fatality infrastructure report suboptimal capability to respond. National leadership is needed to ensure sector-specific and infrastructure-wide preparedness for a large-scale MFI.
KW - disaster
KW - emergency preparedness
KW - epidemiologic methods
KW - hazardous substances
KW - health policy
KW - mass fatalities
KW - network analysis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959458643&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959458643&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/dmp.2015.135
DO - 10.1017/dmp.2015.135
M3 - Article
C2 - 26708604
AN - SCOPUS:84959458643
VL - 10
SP - 87
EP - 97
JO - Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
JF - Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
SN - 1935-7893
IS - 1
ER -