The Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) program of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provides funds to major U. S. cities to help them develop plans for coping with the health and medical consequences of a terrorist attack with chemical, biological, or radiological (CBR) agents. DHHS asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to assist in assessing the effectiveness of the MMRS program by developing appropriate evaluation methods, tools, and processes to assess both its own management of the program and local preparedness in the cities that have participated in the program. This book provides the managers of the MMRS program and others concerned about local capabilities to cope with CBR terrorism with three evaluation tools and a three-part assessment method. The tools are a questionnaire survey eliciting feedback about the management of the MMRS program, a table of preparedness indicators for 23 essential response capabilities, and a set of three scenarios and related questions for group discussion. The assessment method described integrates document inspection, a site visit by a team of expert peer reviewers, and observations at community exercises and drills.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Metropolitan Medical Response (MMRS) program has evolved from an idea originally developed in the Washington, D.C., area in 1995. Using the combined personnel and equipment resources from Washington, D.C., Arlington County in Virginia, and Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland, the Metropolitan Medical Strike Team (MMST) received training, equipment, and supplies specifically designed to facilitate an effective response to a mass-casualty terrorism incident with a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). The first of its kind in the civilian environment, the MMST was intended to be capable of providing initial, on-site emergency health, medical, and mental health services after a terrorist incident involving chemical, biological, or radiological (CBR) materials. The team's mission includes CBR agent detection and identification, patient decontamination, triage and medical treatment, emergency transportation of patients to local hospitals, coordination of movement of patients to more distant hospitals via the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), and planning for the disposition of nonsurvivors. Building from the initial efforts of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area MMST, OEP provided funding for the development of a similar team in the city of Atlanta in preparation for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. The U.S. Congress has subsequently authorized and provided funding for additional contracts with the 120 most populous U.S. cities. Tools for Evaluating the Metropolitan Medical REsponse System Program: Phase I Report identifies and develops performance measures and systems to assess the effectiveness of, and to identify barriers related to, the MMRS development process. This report identifies, recommends, and develops performance measures and systems to assess the effectiveness of, and identify barriers related to, the MMRS development process at the site, jurisdictional, and governmental levels.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Metropolitan Medical Response (MMRS) program has evolved from an idea originally developed in the Washington, D.C., area in 1995. Using the combined personnel and equipment resources from Washington, D.C., Arlington County in Virginia, and Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland, the Metropolitan Medical Strike Team (MMST) received training, equipment, and supplies specifically designed to facilitate an effective response to a mass-casualty terrorism incident with a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). The first of its kind in the civilian environment, the MMST was intended to be capable of providing initial, on-site emergency health, medical, and mental health services after a terrorist incident involving chemical, biological, or radiological (CBR) materials. The team's mission includes CBR agent detection and identification, patient decontamination, triage and medical treatment, emergency transportation of patients to local hospitals, coordination of movement of patients to more distant hospitals via the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), and planning for the disposition of nonsurvivors. Building from the initial efforts of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area MMST, OEP provided funding for the development of a similar team in the city of Atlanta in preparation for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. The U.S. Congress has subsequently authorized and provided funding for additional contracts with the 120 most populous U.S. cities. Tools for Evaluating the Metropolitan Medical REsponse System Program: Phase I Report identifies and develops performance measures and systems to assess the effectiveness of, and to identify barriers related to, the MMRS development process. This report identifies, recommends, and develops performance measures and systems to assess the effectiveness of, and identify barriers related to, the MMRS development process at the site, jurisdictional, and governmental levels.
The Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) program of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provides funds to major U. S. cities to help them develop plans for coping with the health and medical consequences of a terrorist attack with chemical, biological, or radiological (CBR) agents. DHHS asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to assist in assessing the effectiveness of the MMRS program by developing appropriate evaluation methods, tools, and processes to assess both its own management of the program and local preparedness in the cities that have participated in the program. This book provides the managers of the MMRS program and others concerned about local capabilities to cope with CBR terrorism with three evaluation tools and a three-part assessment method. The tools are a questionnaire survey eliciting feedback about the management of the MMRS program, a table of preparedness indicators for 23 essential response capabilities, and a set of three scenarios and related questions for group discussion. The assessment method described integrates document inspection, a site visit by a team of expert peer reviewers, and observations at community exercises and drills.
Schools of public health act as a resource by providing expertise to strengthen our nation's emergency response systems. In response to the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), there is an immediate and critical need to define research priorities for the Centers for Public Health Preparedness (CPHP) at schools of public health. It is because of this crucial need, that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) convened an ad hoc committee, conducted a fast-track study, and issued the book entitled Research Priorities in Emergency Preparedness and Response for Public Health Systems. The book defines a set of near-term research priorities for emergency preparedness and response in public health systems. These priorities will be used by the Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response (COPTER) to help develop a research agenda that will in turn be used to inform research funding opportunity announcements. After considering the information presented during the public meeting and workshop and based on its expert judgment, the committee identified four priority areas for research that represent specific important aspects of systems of public health preparedness. The four areas are: enhancing the usefulness of training; improving timely emergency communications; creating and maintaining sustainable response systems; and generating effectiveness criteria and metrics.
When communities face complex public health emergencies, state local, tribal, and territorial public health agencies must make difficult decisions regarding how to effectively respond. The public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system, with its multifaceted mission to prevent, protect against, quickly respond to, and recover from public health emergencies, is inherently complex and encompasses policies, organizations, and programs. Since the events of September 11, 2001, the United States has invested billions of dollars and immeasurable amounts of human capital to develop and enhance public health emergency preparedness and infrastructure to respond to a wide range of public health threats, including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear events. Despite the investments in research and the growing body of empirical literature on a range of preparedness and response capabilities and functions, there has been no national-level, comprehensive review and grading of evidence for public health emergency preparedness and response practices comparable to those utilized in medicine and other public health fields. Evidence-Based Practice for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response reviews the state of the evidence on PHEPR practices and the improvements necessary to move the field forward and to strengthen the PHEPR system. This publication evaluates PHEPR evidence to understand the balance of benefits and harms of PHEPR practices, with a focus on four main areas of PHEPR: engagement with and training of community-based partners to improve the outcomes of at-risk populations after public health emergencies; activation of a public health emergency operations center; communication of public health alerts and guidance to technical audiences during a public health emergency; and implementation of quarantine to reduce the spread of contagious illness.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.