一项国家研究检查分配(pod)封闭点:存在,准备,演习参与和培训提供。

Terri Rebmann, Travis M Loux, Zachary Swick, David Reddick, Harlan Dolgin, John Anthony, Rohan Prasad
{"title":"一项国家研究检查分配(pod)封闭点:存在,准备,演习参与和培训提供。","authors":"Terri Rebmann,&nbsp;Travis M Loux,&nbsp;Zachary Swick,&nbsp;David Reddick,&nbsp;Harlan Dolgin,&nbsp;John Anthony,&nbsp;Rohan Prasad","doi":"10.1089/bsp.2014.0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using open points of dispensing (PODs) and alternative modalities, such as closed PODs, for mass dispensing of medical countermeasures. However, closed POD existence has not been assessed. In 2013 we sent an online questionnaire to US Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) and non-CRI public health disaster planners. Chi-square tests were used to determine differences between CRIs and non-CRIs when comparing having at least 1 closed POD, and to compare having a closed POD and perceived mass dispensing preparedness. A total of 301 disaster planners participated. Almost all (89.3%, n=218) jurisdictions have considered establishing a closed POD, and three-quarters (74.2%, n=181) currently have at least one. CRIs were more likely than non-CRIs to have a closed POD (85.0% vs 58.5%, X(2)=21.3, p<.001). Those with 1 or more closed PODs were more likely to believe their jurisdiction could distribute medical countermeasures within 48 hours compared to those without a closed POD (78.5% vs 21.5%; X(2)=10.8, p=.001). Half had a written plan and/or written standing orders (59.1% and 52.5%, respectively). Almost half (42%, n=72) have done no preevent training for POD staff in the past 2 years; almost 20% (18%, n=32) do not plan to offer any just-in-time training. Nearly 40% (n=70) have conducted no exercises in the past year. Closed PODs contribute to community preparedness; their establishment should be followed by development of written plans, worker training, and exercises. </p>","PeriodicalId":87059,"journal":{"name":"Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science","volume":"12 4","pages":"208-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/bsp.2014.0014","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A national study examining closed points of dispensing (PODs): existence, preparedness, exercise participation, and training provided.\",\"authors\":\"Terri Rebmann,&nbsp;Travis M Loux,&nbsp;Zachary Swick,&nbsp;David Reddick,&nbsp;Harlan Dolgin,&nbsp;John Anthony,&nbsp;Rohan Prasad\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/bsp.2014.0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using open points of dispensing (PODs) and alternative modalities, such as closed PODs, for mass dispensing of medical countermeasures. However, closed POD existence has not been assessed. In 2013 we sent an online questionnaire to US Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) and non-CRI public health disaster planners. Chi-square tests were used to determine differences between CRIs and non-CRIs when comparing having at least 1 closed POD, and to compare having a closed POD and perceived mass dispensing preparedness. A total of 301 disaster planners participated. Almost all (89.3%, n=218) jurisdictions have considered establishing a closed POD, and three-quarters (74.2%, n=181) currently have at least one. CRIs were more likely than non-CRIs to have a closed POD (85.0% vs 58.5%, X(2)=21.3, p<.001). Those with 1 or more closed PODs were more likely to believe their jurisdiction could distribute medical countermeasures within 48 hours compared to those without a closed POD (78.5% vs 21.5%; X(2)=10.8, p=.001). Half had a written plan and/or written standing orders (59.1% and 52.5%, respectively). Almost half (42%, n=72) have done no preevent training for POD staff in the past 2 years; almost 20% (18%, n=32) do not plan to offer any just-in-time training. Nearly 40% (n=70) have conducted no exercises in the past year. Closed PODs contribute to community preparedness; their establishment should be followed by development of written plans, worker training, and exercises. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87059,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science\",\"volume\":\"12 4\",\"pages\":\"208-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/bsp.2014.0014\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2014.0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2014/7/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2014.0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

疾病控制和预防中心建议使用开放式分发点(pod)和其他方式,如封闭的pod,大规模分发医疗对策。然而,尚未对封闭POD的存在进行评估。2013年,我们向美国城市准备倡议(CRI)和非CRI公共卫生灾难规划者发送了一份在线问卷。卡方检验用于确定cri和非cri在比较至少1个封闭POD时的差异,并比较具有封闭POD和感知的质量分配准备。共有301名灾害规划人员参与。几乎所有(89.3%,n=218)司法管辖区都考虑过建立封闭的POD,四分之三(74.2%,n=181)的司法管辖区目前至少有一个POD。cri患者比非cri患者更有可能出现闭合性POD (85.0% vs 58.5%, X(2)=21.3, p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A national study examining closed points of dispensing (PODs): existence, preparedness, exercise participation, and training provided.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using open points of dispensing (PODs) and alternative modalities, such as closed PODs, for mass dispensing of medical countermeasures. However, closed POD existence has not been assessed. In 2013 we sent an online questionnaire to US Cities Readiness Initiative (CRI) and non-CRI public health disaster planners. Chi-square tests were used to determine differences between CRIs and non-CRIs when comparing having at least 1 closed POD, and to compare having a closed POD and perceived mass dispensing preparedness. A total of 301 disaster planners participated. Almost all (89.3%, n=218) jurisdictions have considered establishing a closed POD, and three-quarters (74.2%, n=181) currently have at least one. CRIs were more likely than non-CRIs to have a closed POD (85.0% vs 58.5%, X(2)=21.3, p<.001). Those with 1 or more closed PODs were more likely to believe their jurisdiction could distribute medical countermeasures within 48 hours compared to those without a closed POD (78.5% vs 21.5%; X(2)=10.8, p=.001). Half had a written plan and/or written standing orders (59.1% and 52.5%, respectively). Almost half (42%, n=72) have done no preevent training for POD staff in the past 2 years; almost 20% (18%, n=32) do not plan to offer any just-in-time training. Nearly 40% (n=70) have conducted no exercises in the past year. Closed PODs contribute to community preparedness; their establishment should be followed by development of written plans, worker training, and exercises.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信