Altered standards of care during an influenza pandemic: identifying ethical, legal, and practical principles to guide decision making.

Although widespread support favors prospective planning for altered standards of care during mass casualty events, the literature includes few, if any, accounts of groups that have formally addressed the overarching policy considerations at the state level. We describe the planning process undertaken by public health officials in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, along with community and academic partners, to explore the issues surrounding altered standards of care in the event of pandemic influenza. Throughout 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Harvard School of Public Health Center for Public Health Preparedness jointly convened a working group comprising ethicists, lawyers, clinicians, and local and state public health officials to consider issues such as allocation of antiviral medications, prioritization of critical care, and state seizure of private assets. Community stakeholders were also engaged in the process through facilitated discussion of case scenarios focused on these and other issues. The objective of this initiative was to establish a framework and some fundamental principles that would subsequently guide the process of establishing specific altered standards of care protocols. The group collectively identified 4 goals and 7 principles to guide the equitable allocation of limited resources and establishment of altered standards of care protocols. Reviewing and analyzing this process to date may serve as a resource for other states.

Impact of tabletop exercises on participants' knowledge of and confidence in legal authorities for infectious disease emergencies.

OBJECTIVE: Legal preparedness is a critical component of comprehensive public health preparedness for public health emergencies. The scope of this study was to assess the usefulness of combining didactic sessions with a tabletop exercise as educational tools in legal preparedness, to assess the impact of the exercise on the participants' level of confidence about the legal preparedness of a public health system, and to identify legal issue areas in need of further improvement. METHODS: The exercise scenario and the pre- and postexercise evaluation were designed to assess knowledge gained and level of confidence in declaration of emergencies, isolation and quarantine, restrictions (including curfew) on the movement of people, closure of public places, and mass prophylaxis, and to identify legal preparedness areas most in need of further improvement at the system level. Fisher exact test and paired t test were performed to compare pre- and postexercise results. RESULTS: Our analysis shows that a combination of didactic teaching and experiential learning through a tabletop exercise regarding legal preparedness for infectious disease emergencies can be effective in both imparting perceived knowledge to participants and gathering information about sufficiency of authorities and existence of gaps. CONCLUSIONS: The exercise provided a valuable forum to judge the adequacy of legal authorities, policies, and procedures for dealing with pandemic influenza at the state and local levels in Massachusetts. In general, participants were more confident about the availability and sufficiency of legal authorities than they were about policies and procedures for implementing them. Participants were also more likely to report the need for improvement in authorities, policies, and procedures in the private sector and at the local level than at the state level.