Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:22:42.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mass-Fatality Incident Preparedness Among Faith-Based Organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2017

Qi Zhi ,
Jacqueline A. Merrill  and
Robyn R. Gershon
Qi Zhi
Affiliation:
Phillip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CaliforniaUSA
Jacqueline A. Merrill
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New YorkUSA
Robyn R. Gershon*
Affiliation:
Phillip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CaliforniaUSA Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CaliforniaUSA
*
Correspondence: Robyn Gershon, DrPH 3333 California Street, Suite 280 San Francisco, California 94118 USA E-mail: robyn.gershon@ucsf.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Members of faith-based organizations (FBOs) are in a unique position to provide support and services to their local communities during disasters. Because of their close community ties and well-established trust, they can play an especially critical role in helping communities heal in the aftermath of a mass-fatality incident (MFI). Faith-based organizations are considered an important disaster resource and partner under the National Response Plan (NRP) and National Response Framework; however, their level of preparedness and response capabilities with respect to MFIs has never been evaluated. The purpose of this study was threefold: (1) to develop appropriate measures of preparedness for this sector; (2) to assess MFI preparedness among United States FBOs; and (3) to identify key factors associated with MFI preparedness.

Problem

New metrics for MFI preparedness, comprised of three domains (organizational capabilities, operational capabilities, and resource sharing partnerships), were developed and tested in a national convenience sample of FBO members.

Methods

Data were collected using an online anonymous survey that was distributed through two major, national faith-based associations and social media during a 6-week period in 2014. Descriptive, bivariate, and correlational analyses were conducted.

Results

One hundred twenty-four respondents completed the online survey. More than one-half of the FBOs had responded to MFIs in the previous five years. Only 20% of respondents thought that roughly three-quarters of FBO clergy would be able to respond to MFIs, with or without hazardous contamination. A higher proportion (45%) thought that most FBO clergy would be willing to respond, but only 37% thought they would be willing if hazardous contamination was involved. Almost all respondents reported that their FBO was capable of providing emotional care and grief counseling in response to MFIs. Resource sharing partnerships were typically in place with other voluntary organizations (73%) and less likely with local death care sector organizations (27%) or Departments of Health (DOHs; 32%).

Conclusions

The study suggests improvements are needed in terms of staff training in general, and specifically, drills with planning partners are needed. Greater cooperation and inclusion of FBOs in national planning and training will likely benefit overall MFI preparedness in the US.

ZhiQ, MerrillJA, GershonRR. Mass-Fatality Incident Preparedness Among Faith-Based Organizations. Prehosp Disaster Med.2017;32(6):596–603.

Keywords

chaplaincross-sectional studydisaster preparednessfaith-based organizationsinterfaithmass-fatality incident
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 596 - 603
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: none

References

1. Federal Emergency Management Agency. A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action. Published 2011. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1813-25045-0649/whole_community_dec2011__2_.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2016.Google Scholar
2. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Response Framework. In: Department of Homeland Security. Published 2016. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1466014682982-9bcf8245ba4c60c120aa915abe74e15d/ National_Response_Framework3rd.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2017.Google Scholar
3. US Department of Homeland Security. National Response Plan. Published 2016. https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NRP_Brochure.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2017.Google Scholar
4. Horney, J, Nguyen, M, Salvesen, D, Tomasco, O, Berke, P. Engaging the public in planning for disaster recovery. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2016;17:33-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. McCabe, OL, Semon, NL, Thompson, CB, et al. Building a national model of public mental health preparedness and community resilience: validation of a dual-intervention, systems-based approach. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2014;8(06):511-526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Gill, KB, Gershon, RRM. Disaster mental health training programs in New York City following September 11, 2001. Disasters. 2010;34(3):608-618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Kilmer, RP, Gil-Rivas, V. Responding to the needs of children and families after a disaster: linkages between unmet needs and caregiver functioning. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2010;80(1):135-142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster. http://www.nvoad.org/. Accessed August 16, 2016.Google Scholar
9. National Disaster Interfaiths Network. http://www.n-din.org/. Accessed August 16, 2016.Google Scholar
10. Merrill, JA, Orr, M, Chen, DY, Zhi, Q, Gershon, RR. Are we ready for mass fatality incidents? Preparedness of the US mass fatality infrastructure. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2016;10(1):87-97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Gershon, RR, Orr, MG, Zhi, Q, et al. Mass fatality preparedness among medical examiners/coroners in the United States: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):1275.Google Scholar
12. Joshi, P. Faith-Based and Community Organizations’ Participation in Emergency Preparedness and Response Activities. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina USA: Institute for Homeland Security Solutions; 2010. https://www.rti.org/publication/faith-based-and-community-organizations%E2%80%99-participation-emergency-preparedness-and.Google Scholar
13. Swain, S. The T. Mort. Chaplaincy at ground zero: presence and privilege on holy ground. J Relig Health. 2011;50(3):481-498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Zhi supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Zhi supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 420.9 KB