Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T09:31:42.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response following Hurricane Ike—Texas, 25-30 September 2008

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

David F. Zane ,
Tesfaye M. Bayleyegn ,
Tracy L. Haywood ,
Dana Wiltz-Beckham ,
Harlan “Mark” Guidry ,
Carlos Sanchez  and
Amy F. Wolkin
David F. Zane*
Affiliation:
Community Preparedness Section, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas, USA
Tesfaye M. Bayleyegn
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Tracy L. Haywood
Affiliation:
Community Preparedness Section, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas, USA
Dana Wiltz-Beckham
Affiliation:
Galveston County Health District, La Marque, Texas, USA
Harlan “Mark” Guidry
Affiliation:
Galveston County Health District, La Marque, Texas, USA
Carlos Sanchez
Affiliation:
Emerging Infections Program, US Naval Medical Research Center Detachment (NMRCD) Lima, Peru
Amy F. Wolkin
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
*
Community Preparedness Section (MC 1926), Texas Department of State Health Services, PO Box 149347, Austin, Texas 78714-9347, USA E-mail: david.zane@dshs.state.tx.us
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

On 13 September 2008, Hurricane Ike made landfall near Galveston, Texas, resulting in an estimated 74 deaths statewide and extensive damage in many counties. The Texas Department of State Health Services, US Public Health Service, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted assessments beginning 12 days following hurricane landfall to identify the public health needs of three affected communities. The results of the assessment are presented, and an example of a type of public health epidemiological response to a disaster due to a natural hazard is provided.

Methods:

A one-page questionnaire that focused on household public health characteristics was developed. Using a two-stage cluster sampling methodology, 30 census blocks were selected randomly in three communities (Galveston, Liberty, and Manvel, Texas). Seven households were selected randomly from each block to interview.

Results:

The assessments were conducted on 25, 26, and 30 September 2008. At the time of the interview, 45% percent of the households in Galveston had no electricity, and 26% had no regular garbage collection. Forty-six percent reported feeling that their residence was unsafe to inhabit due to mold, roof, and/or structural damage, and lack of electricity. Sixteen percent of households reported at least one member of the household had an injury since the hurricane. In Liberty, only 7% of the household members interviewed had no access to food, 4% had no working toilet, 2% had no running water, and 2% had no electricity. In Manvel, only 5% of the households did not have access to food, 3% had no running water, 2% had no regular garbage collection, and 3% had no electricity.

Conclusions:

Post-Ike household-level surveys conducted identified the immediate needs and associated risks of the affected communities. Despite the response efforts, a high proportion of households in Galveston still were reportedly lacking electricity and regular garbage pickup 17 days post-storm. The proportion of households with self-reported injury in Galveston suggested the need to enhance public education on how to prevent injuries during hurricane cleanup. Galveston public health officials used the assessment to educate local emergency and elected officials of the health hazards related to lack of basic utilities and medical care in the community. This resulted in the provision of an extensive public health outreach education program throughout the island. The Liberty and Manvel assessment findings suggest that most households in both communities were receiving the basic utilities and that the residents felt “safe”. The assessments reassured local health officials that there were no substantial acute public health needs and provided objective information that services were being restored.

Keywords

community assessmentdisasterdisaster responsehurricaneHurricane Ikepublic health assessmentrapid needs assessment
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , December 2010 , pp. 503 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2010

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

1.Rodriguez, SR, Tocco, JS, Mallonee, S, et al: Rapid needs assessment of Hurricane Katrina evacuees—Oklahoma, September 2005. Prehosp Disaster Med 2006;21(6):390–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Pielke, RA, Pielke, RA: Hurricanes their Nature and Impacts on Society. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1997, pp 118–138.Google Scholar
3.Noji, EK (ed): The Public Health Consequences of Disasters. New York. Oxford University Press, 1997, pp 207–244.Google Scholar
4.Blake, ES, Rappaport, EN, Jarrell, JD, et al: The Deadliest, Costliest and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1851 to 2004 (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts), NOAA, Technical Memorandum NWS-TPC-4, 48 pp. Available at http://w4.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-4.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2008.Google Scholar
5.National Weather Service, Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services. Available at http://www.weather.gov/om/hazstats.shtml. Accessed 15 October 2009.Google Scholar
6.National Weather Service Forecast Office, Houston/Galveston, Texas. Atlantic Hurricane Season Summaries. Available at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/hgx/tropical.htm. Accessed 24 November 2009.Google Scholar
7.National Weather Service Forecast Office, Houston/Galveston, Texas: Hurricane Ike update (September 2008). Available at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/hgx/projects/ike08.htm. Accessed 21 October 2008.Google Scholar
8.Federal Emergency Management Agency: Designated Counties for Texas Hurricane Ike, Disaster Summary For FEMA-1791-DR, Texas. Available at http://www.fema.gov/news/eventcounties.fema?id=10570. Accessed 21 October 2008.Google Scholar
9.US Census Bureau: American Factfinder. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_lang=en&_ts=. Accessed 20 September 2008.Google Scholar
10.[US] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Rapid health needs assessment following Hurricane Andrew—Florida and Louisiana, 1992. MMWR 1992;41:685–688.Google Scholar
11.CDC: Rapid community health and needs assessment following Hurricane Isabel and charley—North Carolina, September 2003-2004. MMWR 2004;53:840–422.Google Scholar
12.CDC: Community needs assessment and morbidity surveillance following an ice storm—Maine, January 1998. MMWR 1998;47:351–354.Google Scholar
13.Malilay, J: Tropical Cyclone. In: Noji, EK (ed): The Public Health Consequences of Disasters. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
14.Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Toolkit. Atlanta (GA): CDC; 2009. Available at http://www.emergency.cdc.gov/disasters/surveillance/. Accessed 21 October 2008.Google Scholar
15.Lala, MK, Lala, KR: Health after disaster. Indian Journal of Community Medicine 2006;31(3):123–128.Google Scholar
16.Bayleyegn, T, Wolkin, A, Oberst, K, et al: Rapid assessment of the needs and health status in Santa Rosa and Escambia Counties, Florida, after Hurricane Ivan, September 2004: Disaster Manag Response 2006;4(1):12–18.Google Scholar
17.Malilay, J: Public health assessments in disaster settings: Recommendations for a multidisciplinary approach. Prehosp Disaster Med 2000;15(4):167–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.CDC: Tropical Storm Allison rapid needs assessment—Houston, Texas, June 2001. MMWR 2002;51:365–369.Google Scholar
19.Malilay, J, Flanders, WD, Brogan, D: A modified cluster-sampling method for post-disaster rapid assessment of needs. Bull World Health Organ 1996;74:399–405.Google Scholar
20.Hlady, GW, Quenemoen, LE, Armenia-Cope, RR, et al: Use of a modified cluster sampling method to perform rapid needs assessment after Hurricane Andrew. Ann Emerg Med 1994;23:719–725.Google Scholar
21.CDC: Comprehensive assessment of health needs 2 months after Hurricane Andrew—Dade County, Florida, 1992. MMWR 1993;42(22):434–437.Google Scholar
22.CDC. Rapid Assessment of the Needs and Health status of older adults after Hurricane Charley—Charlotte, Desoto, and Hardee counties, Florida, August 27-31, 2004. MMWR 2004; 53(36);837–840. Reprint, JAMA 2004;292(15):1813-1814.Google Scholar