Disaster Medical Services System

Standards Development Advisory Group

Meeting Summary – November 7, 2001

Members Attending: Nancy LaPolla, Barbara Center; Robert Petrucci, Carl Schultz;

Other Attendees: Doug Buchanan; Calvin Freeman

Doug Buchanan convened the meeting at 10:00 and reviewed the meeting’s agenda.

Legislation Update

Doug Buchanan reported that CHEAC and HOAC are sponsoring legislation that addresses the health officer’s role in disasters. Their bill has money attached. The bill sponsored by EMSAAC will be authored by Helen Thompson.

Guidelines: Position Descriptions

The drafted position descriptions represent a good starting point that needs input from public health, environmental health, and mental health.

Division of Operational Responsibility between EOC and DOC

The Advisory Group discussed the issue of how duties should be divided between an EOC and a DOC. In most instances, if a DOC is activated most medical/health resource related operations will take place at the DOC. The medical/health function at the EOC will have primarily policy responsibilities. In some small counties, almost all logistics, finance, and planning activities will be located at the EOC for all response functions regardless of whether a DOC is activated. For example:

· Medical/Health Operations Section could be established at the EOC with no DOC activation.

· Operations Section could be established at the DOC, but with no Planning, Finance, or Logistics Sections at the DOC.

· Operations Section could be established at the DOC along with Planning, Finance, and Logistics Sections.

Ultimately, the division of responsibilities between the EOC and a DOC will depend on the nature and scope of the disaster; the resources available to the medical/health response; space, communications, and staffing capabilities; and, the preferences of the County’s OES and Health Officer.

EOC / DOC Decision Making

The Advisory Group noted that some communication and coordination between the EOC and DOC flows through the chain of command, while other communication can flow directly between functions, e.g., DOC Logistics Section to EOC Logistics Section. The Advisory recommends that procedures for DOCs include explicit instructions that approval/denial decisions and critical information should flow through the organization’s command structure; coordinating information may flow directly between the units that require the information to perform their tasks.

Policy Templates

Staff will provide the Advisory Group with samples of policy templates and a list of issues for which sample policies should be developed.

Disaster Medical Services Priorities

The EMS Authority requested input on disaster medical priorities. The Advisory group reviewed the complete list and identified the following seven priorities. The priorities are listed in the order in which they appear on the original list rather than in priority order.

1. DHS and EMSA should formalize an ongoing multi-disciplinary disaster medical/health committee.

2. Develop additional patient triage and treatment capacity to augment the capabilities of hospitals by:

· Assisting hospitals to expand current capabilities.

· Developing coordinated response networks that incorporate non-hospital medical assets.

· Building the capability of hospitals to establish ad hoc triage and treatment facilities.

3. Select an existing mednet frequency to serve as a statewide communications frequency.

4. Provide Reddi-net or compatible secure disaster communications systems, incorporating injury and illness surveillance and standardized public information, for hospitals, health departments, LEMSAs, and RDMHCs.

5. Ensure there are mass decontamination capabilities or procedures at hospitals.

6. Increase the number of healthcare professionals who receive ap0propriate disaster medical training by:

· Establishing training requirements.

· Increasing the availability of train-the-trainer programs.

· Developing standardized curricula.

Increase epidemiological surveillance capacity by making illnesses and injuries related to declared disasters and terrorists events reportable public health conditions.
Training

1. The SEMS training matrix should be compiled into a chart format that addresses the following types of training:

· SEMS Introduction

· Field (Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced)

· Group Supervisor – ICS / FIRESCOPE

· MCI

· EOC

· HEICS

· Train-the-trainer courses

2. The project will review FIRESCOPE and SEMS curricula and assess the status of train-the-trainer programs. Train-the-trainer programs will need to have defined training requirements and certification for trainers.

3. The project will determine the need for and availability of continuing education in disaster medical services.

Agenda for Next Meeting

· SEMS Training Matrix

· Survey of training needs and availability

· Additional position checklists

· DMS policies for LEMSAs

· MCI Curricula

· Certification guidelines

· LEMSA self-assessment

· Legislative Update.

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 PM.

Disaster Medical Services System

Standards Development Steering Committee

Meeting Summary – June 6, 2001

Members Attending: Barbara Center; Sherlene Stepp; Steve Wood; Dennis Smith

Other Attendees: Doug Buchanan; Cheryl Starling; Calvin Freeman

The Steering Committee meeting was convened at 1:00 PM.

In reviewing the Standards and Guidelines, the Steering Committee recommended changing “LEMSA Roles” to “Lead LEMSA Roles” to clarify that these are roles for which LEMSAs have “lead” rather than total responsibility.

The Steering Committee also expressed concern about the lack of clarity between preparedness and response in Function 6. Developing response plans is a preparedness activity. The Committee also recommended expanding the objectives of Function 6 to encompass vulnerable populations broadly.

The Steering Committee recommended that the draft legislative language directly address the Standards Maintenance Organization (SMO). Specifically the legislation should:

· Authorize the creation of the SMO

· Define it as an advisory body but with responsibility to review proposed standards and regulations and standards.

· Provide funds for operation of the Organization.

· Possibly define membership.

· Indicate that members will not be paid.

The Steering Committee also discussed extensively the proposed design for the SMO. The Committee recommended that the SMO be formulated as a single body with two subcommittees that provide advisory functions to the DHS and EMSA, respectively. The two advisory committees would have some overlapping membership (e.g., DHS and EMSA staff, health officers, etc.)