Search

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically accelerated a growing trend toward online and asynchronous education and professional training, including in the disaster medicine and public health sector. This study analyzed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the growth of the TRAIN Learning Network (TRAIN) for the year 2020 and evaluated pandemic-related changes in use patterns by disaster and public health professionals., Methods: The TRAIN database was queried to determine the change in the number of registered users, total courses completed, and courses completed related to COVID-19 during 2020., Results: In 2020, a total of 755,222 new users joined the platform - nearly 3 times the average added annually over the preceding 5 y (2015-2019). TRAIN users completed 3,259,074 training courses in 2020, more than double the average number of training courses that were completed annually from 2015-2019. In addition, 17.8% of all newly added disaster and public health training courses in 2020 were specifically related to COVID-19., Conclusion: Online education provided by TRAIN is a critical tool for just-in-time disaster health training following a disaster event or public health emergency, including in a global health crisis such as a pandemic.

Objective: Disaster-related research funding in the United States has not been described. This study characterizes Federal funding for disaster-related research for 5 professional disciplines: medicine, public health, social science, engineering, emergency management., Methods: An online key word search was performed using the website, www.USAspending.gov, to identify federal awards, grants, and contracts during 2011-2016. A panel of experts then reviewed each entry for inclusion., Results: The search identified 9145 entries, of which 262 (3%) met inclusion criteria. Over 6 years, the Federal Government awarded US $69 325 130 for all disaster-related research. Total funding levels quadrupled in the first 3 years and then halved in the last 3 years. Half of the funding was for engineering, 3 times higher than social sciences and emergency management and 5 times higher than public health and medicine. Ten (11%) institutions received 52% of all funding. The search returned entries for only 12 of the 35 pre-identified disaster-related capabilities; 6 of 12 capabilities appear to have received no funding for at least 2 years., Conclusion: US federal funding for disaster-related research is limited and highly variable during 2011-2016. There are no clear reasons for apportionment. There appears to be an absence of prioritization. There does not appear to be a strategy for alignment of research with national disaster policies.

In an effort to enhance education, training, and learning in the disaster health community, the National Center for Disaster Medicine and Public Health (NCDMPH) gathered experts from around the nation in Bethesda, Maryland, on September 8, 2016, for the 2016 Disaster Health Education Symposium: Innovations for Tomorrow. This article summarizes key themes presented during the disaster health symposium including innovations in the following areas: training and education that saves lives, practice, teaching, sharing knowledge, and our communities. This summary article provides thematic content for those unable to attend. Please visit http://ncdmph.usuhs.edu/ for more information. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:160-162).

Objective: To assess the level of pandemic preparedness at emergency departments (EDs) around the country and to better understand current barriers to preparedness in the United States represented by health professionals in the American College of Emergency Physician (ACEP) Disaster Medicine Section (DMS). METHODS, DESIGN, and, Setting: A cross-sectional survey of ACEP DMS members was performed. A total of 300 members were surveyed both via e-mail and with paper surveys during the 2009 ACEP Scientific Assembly DMS Meeting. An optional comments section was included for section members'perspectives on barriers to preparedness. A 15-item pandemic preparedness score was calculated for each respondent based on key preparedness indicators as defined by the authors. Results were analyzed with descriptive statistics, Chi2 analysis, Cochran-Armitage trend test, and analysis of variance. Free text comments were coded and subjected to frequency-based analysis., Results: A total of 92 DMS members completed the survey with a response rate of31 percent. Although 85 percent of those surveyed indicated that their hospital had a plan for pandemic influenza response and other infectious disease threats, only 68 percent indicated that their ED had a plan, and 52 percent indicated that their hospital or ED had conducted disaster preparedness drills. Only 57 percent indicated that there was a plan to augment ED staff in the event of a staffing shortage, and 63 percent indicated that there were adequate supplies of personal protective equipment. While 63 percent of respondents indicated that their ED had a plan for distribution of vaccines and antivirals, only 32 percent ofEDs had a plan for allocation of ventilators. A total of 42 percent of respondents felt that their ED was prepared in the event of a pandemic influenza or other disease outbreak, and only 35 percent felt that their hospital was prepared. The average pandemic preparedness score among respondents was 8.30 of a total of 15. Larger EDs were more likely to have a higher preparedness score (p=0.03) and more likely to have a pandemic preparedness plan (p=0.037). Some major barriers to preparedness cited by section members included lack of local administration support, challenges in funding, need for dedicated disaster preparedness personnel, staffing shortages, and a lack of communication among disaster response agencies, particularly at the federal level., Conclusions: There appear to be significant gaps in pandemic influenza and other infectious disease outbreak planning among the hospitals where ACEP DMS members work. This may reflect a broader underlying inadequacy of preparedness measures.

Background: Although the training of future physicians in disaster preparedness and public health issues has been recognized as an important component of graduate medical education, medical students receive relatively limited exposure to these topics. Recommendations have been made to incorporate disaster medicine and public health preparedness into medical school curricula. To date, the perspectives of future physicians on disaster medicine and public health preparedness issues have not been described., Methods: A Web-based survey was disseminated to US medical students. Frequencies, proportions, and odds ratios were calculated to assess perceptions and self-described likelihood to respond to disaster and public health scenarios., Results: Of the 523 medical students who completed the survey, 17.2% believed that they were receiving adequate education and training for natural disasters, 26.2% for pandemic influenza, and 13.4% for radiological events, respectively; 51.6% felt they were sufficiently skilled to respond to a natural disaster, 53.2% for pandemic influenza, and 30.8% for radiological events. Although 96.0% reported willingness to respond to a natural disaster, 93.7% for pandemic influenza, and 83.8% for a radiological event, the majority of respondents did not know to whom they would report in such an event., Conclusions: Despite future physicians' willingness to respond, education and training in disaster medicine and public health preparedness offered in US medical schools is inadequate. Equipping medical students with knowledge, skills, direction, and linkages with volunteer organizations may help build a capable and sustainable auxiliary workforce.