Strengthening the US Medical Countermeasure Enterprise for Biological Threats
In: Health security, Band 15, Heft 1, S. 12-14
ISSN: 2326-5108
7 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Health security, Band 15, Heft 1, S. 12-14
ISSN: 2326-5108
In: Health security, Band 16, Heft 6, S. 410-415
ISSN: 2326-5108
In: Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense strategy, practice and science, Band 12, Heft 6, S. 301-305
ISSN: 1557-850X
In: Journal of homeland security and emergency management, Band 12, Heft 1
ISSN: 1547-7355
AbstractEach of the nuclear power plants in the US is encircled by an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). Within each EPZ, government officials, utility professionals, emergency managers, and public health practitioners collectively conduct extensive planning, exercises, and outreach to better protect their communities in the event of a nuclear accident. Our objective was to conduct a cross-sectional study of off-site public health preparedness within EPZs to better understand the dynamics of nuclear preparedness and uncover lessons for all-hazards preparedness.Using a qualitative, interview-based method, we consulted 120 county emergency managers, state health preparedness officers, state radiation health officials, and industry officials from 17 EPZs in ten different states.Interviewees reflected that EPZ emergency preparedness is generally robust, results from strong public-private partnership between nuclear plants and emergency management agencies, and enhances all-hazard preparedness. However, there exist a few areas which merit further study and improvement. These areas include cross-state coordination, digital public communication, and optimizing the level of public education within EPZs.This first-of-its-kind study provides a cross-sectional snapshot of emergency preparedness in the 10-mile EPZ surrounding nuclear power plants.
Recent infectious disease outbreaks, including the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic and Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, have demonstrated the critical importance of resilient health systems in safeguarding global health security. Importantly, the human, economic and political tolls of these crises are being amplified by health systems' inabilities to respond quickly and effectively. Improving resilience within health systems can build on pre-existing strengths to enhance the readiness of health system actors to respond to crises, while also maintaining core functions. Using data gathered from a scoping literature review, interviews with key informants and from stakeholders who attended a workshop held in Dhaka, Bangladesh, we developed a Health System Resilience Checklist ('the checklist'). The aim of the checklist is to measure the specific capacities, capabilities and processes that health systems need in order to ensure resilience in the face of both infectious disease outbreaks and natural hazards. The checklist is intended to be adapted and used in a broad set of countries as a component of ongoing processes to ensure that health actors, institutions and populations can mount an effective response to infectious disease outbreaks and natural hazards while also maintaining core healthcare services. The checklist is an important first step in improving health system resilience to these threats, but additional research and resources will be necessary to further refine and prioritise the checklist items and to pilot the checklist with the frontline health facilities that would be using it. This will help ensure its feasibility and durability for the long-term within the health systems strengthening and health security fields.
BASE
In: Health security, Band 19, Heft S1, S. S-1-S-4
ISSN: 2326-5108
Infectious disease outbreaks pose major threats to human health and security. Countries with robust capacities for preventing, detecting and responding to outbreaks can avert many of the social, political, economic and health system costs of such crises. The Global Health Security Index (GHS Index)—the first comprehensive assessment and benchmarking of health security and related capabilities across 195 countries—recently found that no country is sufficiently prepared for epidemics or pandemics. The GHS Index can help health security stakeholders identify areas of weakness, as well as opportunities to collaborate across sectors, collectively strengthen health systems and achieve shared public health goals. Some scholars have recently offered constructive critiques of the GHS Index's approach to scoring and ranking countries; its weighting of select indicators; its emphasis on transparency; its focus on biosecurity and biosafety capacities; and divergence between select country scores and corresponding COVID-19-associated caseloads, morbidity, and mortality. Here, we (1) describe the practical value of the GHS Index; (2) present potential use cases to help policymakers and practitioners maximise the utility of the tool; (3) discuss the importance of scoring and ranking; (4) describe the robust methodology underpinning country scores and ranks; (5) highlight the GHS Index's emphasis on transparency and (6) articulate caveats for users wishing to use GHS Index data in health security research, policymaking and practice.
BASE