Physician Emergency Preparedness: A National Poll of Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a more comprehensive view than previously available of US physician preparedness for public health emergencies, this study examined physicians' assessments of their preparedness, training, participation in institutional activities, information practices, and experiences with patient education. Four kinds of public health emergencies were considered: natural disasters, major airborne infections, major foodborne illness outbreaks, and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosives (CBRNE) incidents. METHODS: Between October 19, 2011, and January 11, 2012, researchers conducted a national poll among 1603 practicing physicians in a range of specialties in hospital and nonhospital settings. RESULTS: More than one-half of physicians felt prepared to handle a natural disaster, a major outbreak of an airborne infection, or a major foodborne illness outbreak, whereas one-third (34%) felt prepared to handle a CBRNE incident. About one-half of physicians (55%) had participated in training or a conference related to emergencies in the past 2 years. Sizable fractions of physicians were unaware of emergency response tools in their care setting. For example, nearly one-half in hospitals (44%) did not know whether their care setting had an emergency response plan, and less than one-quarter had participated in a drill using such a plan in the past 2 years. Less than one-third (31%) of physicians had signed up to receive alerts in the case of future emergencies. One in 10 reported sharing emergency information with patients at least "sometimes." CONCLUSIONS: Significant gaps remain in physician preparedness for public health emergencies, as well as in related training and participation in institutional activities. New efforts, with a focus on possible collaborations between public health institutions and health system leaders combined with effective use of online resources, are needed to bring more physicians on board and to develop relevant and useful key tools. New approaches, including those that rely on different types of care providers, may be needed to enhance patient education regarding emergency preparedness.

Public response to an anthrax attack: a multiethnic perspective.

The 2001 anthrax attacks emphasized the need to develop outreach that would more effectively support racial/ethnic minority populations during a bioterrorism incident. Given the importance of antibiotic prophylaxis in a future anthrax attack, it should be a priority to better support racial/ethnic minorities in mass dispensing programs. To examine the needs and perspectives of racial/ethnic minorities, this study used a nationally representative poll of 1,852 adults, including 1,240 whites, 261 African Americans, and 282 Hispanics. The poll examined public reactions to a ''worst-case scenario'' in which cases of inhalation anthrax are discovered without an identified source and the entire population of a city or town is asked to receive antibiotic prophylaxis within 48 hours. Findings suggest willingness across all racial/ethnic groups to comply with recommendations to seek prophylaxis at dispensing sites. However, findings also indicate possible barriers for racial/ethnic minorities, including greater concern about pill safety and multiple attacks as well as lesser knowledge about inhalation anthrax. Across all racial/ethnic groups, roughly half would prefer to receive antibiotics at mass dispensing sites rather than through the US Postal Service. People in racial/ethnic minority groups were more likely to say this preference stems from a desire to speak with staff or to exchange medication formulation or type. Findings suggest the need for tailored outreach to racial/ethnic minorities through, for example, emphasis on key messages and enhanced understandability in communications, increased staff for answering questions in relevant dispensing sites, and long-term trust building with racial/ethnic minority communities.