Post-disaster Gulf Coast recovery using telehealth.

OBJECTIVE: The Gulf Coast continues to struggle with service need far outpacing available resources. Since 2005, the Regional Coordinating Center for Hurricane Response (RCC) at Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, has supported telehealth solutions designed to meet high service needs (e.g., psychiatry) within primary care and other healthcare organizations. The overall RCC vision is to support autonomous, useful, and sustainable telehealth programs towards mitigating unmet disaster-related needs. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: To assess Gulf Coast telehealth experiences, we conducted semistructured interviews with both regional key informants and national organizations with Gulf Coast recovery interests. Using qualitative-descriptive analysis, interview transcripts were analyzed to identify shared development themes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight key informants were interviewed, representing a 77.6% participation rate among organizations engaged by the RCC. Seven elements critical to telehealth success were identified: Funding, Regulatory, Workflow, Attitudes, Personnel, Technology, and Evaluation. These key informant accounts reveal shared insights with telehealth regarding successes, challenges, and recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The seven elements critical to telehealth success both confirm and organize development principles from a diverse collective of healthcare stakeholders. The structured nature of these insights suggests a generalizable framework upon which other organizations might develop telehealth strategies toward addressing high service needs with limited resources.

Providing continuity of care for chronic diseases in the aftermath of Katrina: from field experience to policy recommendations.

This study sought to elicit challenges and solutions in the provision of health care to those with chronic diseases after Hurricane Katrina in coastal Alabama and Mississippi. In-depth interviews with 30 health and social service providers (key informants) and 4 focus groups with patients with chronic diseases were conducted. Subsequently an advisory panel of key informants was convened. Findings were summarized and key informants submitted additional feedback. The chronic diseases identified as medical management priorities by key informants were mental health, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, respiratory illness, end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. The most frequently mentioned barrier to providing care was maintaining continuity of medications. Contributing factors were inadequate information (inaccessible medical records, poor patient knowledge) and financial constraints. Implemented or suggested solutions included relaxation of insurance limitations preventing advance prescription refills; better predisaster patient education to improve medical knowledge; promotion of personal health records; support for information technology systems at community health centers, in particular electronic medical records; improved allocation of donated medications/medical supplies (centralized coordination, decentralized distribution); and networking between local responders and external aid.

Insuring continuity of care for chronic disease patients after a disaster: key preparedness elements.

BACKGROUND: Care for patients with chronic diseases is a challenge after a disaster. This is particularly true for individuals from health disparate populations as they are less likely to evacuate, have fewer financial resources and often depend on resource-strapped institutions for their care. The specific aim of the study presented here was to elicit challenges and solutions in the provision of health care to those with chronic diseases after Hurricane Katrina in coastal Alabama and Mississippi. METHODS: Focusing on agencies providing care to health disparate populations, a qualitative methodology was employed using in-depth interviews with health and social service providers. Participants identified key elements essential to disaster preparedness. RESULTS: Predisaster issues were patient education and preparedness, evacuation, special needs shelters, and health care provider preparedness. Postdisaster issues were communication, volunteer coordination, and donation management. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned from those on the ground administering health care during disasters should inform future disaster preparations. Furthermore, the methodological approach used in this study engendered collaboration between health care institutions and may enhance future interagency disaster preparedness.