Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:25:33.095Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Results of Medical Countermeasure Drills Among 72 Cities Readiness Initiative Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 2008-2009

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Jaime R. Jones ,
Linda J. Neff ,
Elizabeth K. Ely  and
Andrew M. Parker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective: The Cities Readiness Initiative is a federally funded program designed to assist 72 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in preparing to dispense life-saving medical countermeasures within 48 hours of a public health emergency. Beginning in 2008, the 72 MSAs were required to conduct 3 drills related to the distribution and dispensing of emergency medical countermeasures. The report describes the results of the first year of pilot data for medical countermeasure drills conducted by the MSAs.

Methods: The MSAs were provided templates with key metrics for 5 functional elements critical for a successful dispensing campaign: personnel call down, site activation, facility setup, pick-list generation, and dispensing throughput. Drill submissions were compiled into single data sets for each of the 5 drills. Analyses were conducted to determine whether the measures were comparable across business and non-business hours. Descriptive statistics were computed for each of the key metrics identified in the 5 drills.

Results: Most drills were conducted on Mondays and Wednesdays during business hours (8:00 am-5:00 pm). The median completion time for the personnel call-down drill was 1 hour during business hours (n = 287) and 55 minutes during non-business hours (n = 136). Site-activation drills were completed in a median of 30 minutes during business hours and 5 minutes during non-business hours. Facility setup drills were completed more rapidly during business hours (75 minutes) compared with non-business hours (96 minutes). During business hours, pick lists were generated in a median of 3 minutes compared with 5 minutes during non-business hours. Aggregate results from the dispensing throughput drills demonstrated that the median observed throughput during business hours (60 people/h) was higher than that during non-business hours (43 people/h).

Conclusion: The results of the analyses from this pilot sample of drill submissions provide a baseline for the determination of a national standard in operational capabilities for local jurisdictions to achieve in their planning efforts for a mass dispensing campaign during an emergency.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:357–362)

Keywords

medical countermeasuresdispensingpublic health preparednessStrategic National Stockpile
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 357 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.US Census Bureau. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; December 15, 2010.Google Scholar
2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cities Readiness Initiative. 2010. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/cri/. Accessed February 11, 2011.Google Scholar
3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public Health and Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement Funding and Technical Assistance. 2010. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; May 13, 2010. http://emergency.cdc.gov/cdcpreparedness/coopagreement/index.asp.Google Scholar
4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public Health and Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement Funding and Technical Assistance. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008.Google Scholar
5.Nelson, CChan, EChandra, A, et alDeveloping national standards for public health emergency preparedness with a limited evidence base. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2010;4(4):285–290.Google Scholar
6.Nelson, CDBeckjord, EBDausey, DJChan, ELotstein, DLurie, N. How can we strengthen the evidence base in public health preparedness? Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008;2(4):247–250.Google Scholar
7.Nelson, CChan, EWFan, C, et alNew Tools for Assessing State and Local Capabilities for Countermeasure Delivery. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp; 2009. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR665. Accessed March 17, 2011.Google Scholar