The impact of adaptive capacity on disaster response and recovery: evidence supporting core community capabilities.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between the development of adaptive capacity and disaster response and recovery outcomes. Hospitals and health care systems are a critical element in community planning for all phases of the disaster cycle. There is a lack of research, however, to validate the relationship between the development of these capabilities and improved response and recovery outcomes. Hypothesis/Problem Two hypotheses were formulated to address the research question. The first hypothesis argued that counties or parishes that developed adaptive capacity through pre-event planning, community engagement, training, and the use of national response frameworks would have improved response and recovery performance outcomes. The second hypothesis argued that adaptive capacity, along with response and recovery performance outcomes, predicts the trajectory of recovery progression. METHODS: This study employed a quantitative cross-sectional survey methodology and existing community demographic data to explore the development of adaptive capacity and its ability to predict disaster response and recovery outcomes in communities affected by major disaster in 2011. A total of 333 counties and parishes were included in the final sample, providing a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error. Data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Multiple, hierarchical, and robust regression were used to find the best fitting model. Multi-level modeling with random intercepts was used to control for the nesting effects associated with county, state, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) region sampling. RESULTS: Descriptive results provide a baseline assessment of adaptive capacity development at the community level. While controlling for other variables, hypothesis testing revealed that pre-event planning, community engagement, full-scale exercises, and use of national frameworks predicated overall response and recovery performance outcomes (R 2 = .43; F 13,303 = 13.34; P < .001). In terms of recovery progression, pre-event planning, overall response and recovery performance outcome, total time of disruption, and percent of people below poverty were significant (R 2 = .15; F14,302 = 4.53; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Establishment of empirical data provides communities with reinforcement to continue resilience-building activities at the local level. However, findings from this study suggest that only full-scale exercises were significant in improving response and recovery outcomes. Implications for re-evaluation of disaster training warrant further exploration.

Core competencies for disaster medicine and public health.

Effective preparedness, response, and recovery from disasters require a well-planned, integrated effort with experienced professionals who can apply specialized knowledge and skills in critical situations. While some professionals are trained for this, others may lack the critical knowledge and experience needed to effectively perform under stressful disaster conditions. A set of clear, concise, and precise training standards that may be used to ensure workforce competency in such situations has been developed. The competency set has been defined by a broad and diverse set of leaders in the field and like-minded professionals through a series of Web-based surveys and expert working group meetings. The results may provide a useful starting point for delineating expected competency levels of health professionals in disaster medicine and public health.

A risk stratification tool to assess commercial influences on continuing medical education.

INTRODUCTION: Heightened concerns about industry influence on continuing medical education (CME) have prompted tighter controls on the management of commercial funding and conflict of interest. As a result, CME providers must closely monitor their activities and intervene if bias or noncompliance with accreditation standards is likely. Potential for industry influence can be difficult to assess at a stage in the planning process when mitigation strategies can assure balance and content validity. Few tools exist to aid providers in this regard. METHODS: A 12-item instrument was designed to assess risk for commercial influence on CME. To determine reliability and validity, a cohort of experienced CME professionals applied the tool to standardized "cases" representing CME activities in the early stages of planning. Results were compared with the experts' assignment of the same cases to one of four risk categories. A survey of study participants was conducted to ascertain usefulness and potential applications of the tool. RESULTS: Analysis demonstrated strong intraclass correlation across cases (0.90), interrater reliability (94%), and correlation between assessment of risk with and without the tool (Spearman coefficient, 0.93, p < 0.01; weighted kappa, 0.59). Participants found the tool easy to use and of potential benefit to their CME office. DISCUSSION: The Consortium for Academic Continuing Medical Education (CACME) risk stratification tool can help CME providers identify activities that must be closely monitored for potential industry influence, remain aware of factors that place programming at risk for noncompliance with accreditation standards, and substantiate the allocation of resources by the CME office.