Developing a Consensus Framework for an Effective and Efficient Disaster Response Health System: A National Call to Action

Abstract

Eighteen national organizations, representing medicine, dentistry, nursing, hospital systems, public health, and emergency medical services, have worked together to create a framework for a national and regional disaster response health system that is scalable, multidisciplinary, and seamless, and based on an all-hazards approach. In July 2005 and June 2006 the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) convened the AMA/APHA Linkages Leadership Summit, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the Terrorism Injuries: Information Dissemination and Exchange (TIIDE) program. As cofacilitators, James J. James, MD, DrPH, MHA, director of the AMA Center for Public Health Preparedness and Disaster Response, and Georges Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP(E), APHA executive director, met with leaders from 16 national medical, dental, hospital, nursing, hospital systems, public health, and emergency medical services organizations in Chicago (2005) and New Orleans (2006) to deliberate the deficiencies in the medical and public health disaster response system and the lack of necessary linkages between key components of this system: the health care, emergency medical services, and public health sectors. The goal was to reach consensus on a set of overarching recommendations to improve and sustain health system preparedness and to combine each organization's advocacy expertise and experience to promote a shared policy agenda. The full summit report contains 53 consensus-based recommendations, which will serve as the framework for a coordinated national agenda for strengthening health system preparedness for terrorism and other disasters. The 9 most overarching critical recommendations from the report are highlighted here. Although the summit report presents important perspectives on the subject of preparedness for public health emergencies, we must understand that preparedness is a process and that these recommendations must be reviewed and refined continually over time. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S51–S54)