I blog on this subject with many different feelings….. mainly I hope that I am wrong. But, being involved with Public Health and Emergency Management allows me a unique view into both disciplines dynamics. What troubles me is the direct undertaking of the current H1N1 threat by Public Health from the perspective of being in charge and completing their planning in a silo. What compounds this worry is that Emergency Management in most cases seems content with being a bystander and not getting involved. My fear evolves around this becoming a “perfect storm” scenario if things really take a turn for the worse this Fall and Winter in regards to H1N1. In North Carolina, we have a vey tried and true state emergency operations plan that reflects the emergency management folks remaining in charge of any disaster event, but sharing command with the appropriate lead technical agency for the event (Public Health – pandemic, Dept of Agriculture – foreign animal disease, Radiation Protection – fixed nuclear event…). This system has worked well to allow emergency management to manage the “typical” functions that present themselves during a disaster of any scenario….. mass care, sheltering, law enforcement, evacuation, re-entry and recovery to name a few. The lead technical agency provides specific guidance on the mitigation of the event’s cause. This ensures consistent response and recovery to any and all disaster events. Back to H1N1…..public health appears to be doing all of their own planning, and most of their planning documents represent them as being in charge of the event. The planning is not being integrated, in most cases, with existing emergency management plans and there appears to be an effort to manage the event from the local health department – through regional public health teams – to state public health with little regard of the existing emergency management system. This type of planning in the past has lead to poor communications, poor delivery of services, delays in resources and confusion in chain of command. In some instances, public health has designated schools as Points of Dispensing, emergency management has designated these same schools as shelters, and local hospitals have designated the same school for patient overflow or evacuation…… everyone is not going to fit if a scenario creates the need for all three to activate that plan! The best solution to this puzzle is to simplify the pieces. Public health should be planning under the framework of the local and state emergency management all hazards plan…. not creating a stand alone “SNS” or “pandemic” plan. I hope that this is ocurring in some counties, but the more I see, the more “perfect” the storm seems to be brewing……..
September 26, 2009 at 7:45 pm |
In reading this posting and the earlier one on ICS, I have some thoughts that I would like to share.
First, I have always thought that the emergency services community, at least here in North Carolina, has done one of two things with ICS, either paid “lip service” to the concept, or gone so far over the edge with it that the method superceded the mission. There has to be a balance.
I’ve been doing quite a bit of reseach on ICS lately to complement a browser based application that I’m building. What blew me out of the water is that the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) is so much better detailed and formalized than any guidance that we have received from FEMA. They have their forms modified and finalized. The FEMA forms (FEMA 502-2) are still in draft form (as of July 3, 2008) from what I have found online. The HICS system has formalized Job Action Sheets that guide the users in their roles and responsibilities in four phases:
Immediate (0-2 Hours into event)
Intermediate (2-12 Hours)
Extended (12+ Hours)
Demobilization/System Recovery
Why is it that we, emergency management, the early adopters of ICS, still using ICS-209 forms asking us how many dozers we have and what kind of fuel is burning or available to burn?
Maybe we need to take a step back, have a little humility, and learn a little something from the public health people when it comes to ICS. The reason that they are “running” with this is because they have embraced ICS more fully than those in the emergency services community have. There is a world of difference between NIMS and the Brunacini model. One is all exclusive to fire and the other should be all inclusive, but still has a wildland fire look and feel.
I can tell you from practical experience that the health deparment folks are much more open and willing to work with you in the EOC and exercises. They don’t feel that their turf is going to be overshadowed by an emergency management type which is where the problem exists with our current emergency services community. I have developed a good rapport with my health department and, to be honest, at this point, I’d rather have them in my EOC than most of the other local responders. They have the willingness to work with you and they aren’t worried that our office is going to take any of their responsibilities away from them. As usual, anyone could read between the lines and see that a large part of the problem is that our local emergency services responders are reluctant to leave their egos at the door.
I do believe as you do, that there had better be some realtionships fostered between the EM folks and the Public Health community. I’m glad that I used them in an exercise with the 42nd earlier this year and I believe that it’ll be ok here in the hills.
David Hancock
Watauga Co. FM/EM
C3 Applications