Presentation Title
Current Practices in Interdisciplinary Disaster Response Education
Speaker Credentials
Disaster and Emergency Management
Speaker Credentials
Ph.D.
College
Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Disaster and Emergency Management
Location
Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida, USA
Format
Poster
Start Date
21-2-2020 8:30 AM
End Date
21-2-2020 4:00 PM
Abstract
Objective. This study identifies the current educational practices, effectiveness, and satisfaction across the industry, allowing for the identification of both good practices that may be broadly applicable and training gaps to be considered for improvement. Background. The increased utilization of coordinated disaster response in the United States has resulted in the integration of interdisciplinary professions traditionally taught in segregated “silos.” The lack of interdisciplinary training has been cited as potentially problematic to effective coordinated response. Methods. An anonymous two-page survey identifying current training practices and metrics for effectiveness was distributed, targeting any person potentially involved in a disaster response. Results. Responses were received from 72 professionals, subdivided into fire rescue personnel, law enforcement, government emergency management agencies, private emergency managers, mental health professionals, physicians, and health professional students. Of all respondents, 82% received formal disaster training as defined as a pre- determined curriculum involving at least 50% of classroom-based instruction. 77% participated in a full-scale interdisciplinary disaster response simulation; and, 85% had completed National Incident Management System (NIMS) training. Overall, while all groups valued formal and simulation training, physicians, students and mental health professionals were least likely to have previously participated. Additionally, though there was a general trend towards agreement with statements designed to assess efficacy of training, the average response often included “neutral” within the standard deviation of responses. Conclusion. Progress towards interdisciplinary training has not been uniform across all professions; and among most professions surveyed, this is not strong evidence of comfort and confidence working as interdisciplinary teams.
Current Practices in Interdisciplinary Disaster Response Education
Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida, USA
Objective. This study identifies the current educational practices, effectiveness, and satisfaction across the industry, allowing for the identification of both good practices that may be broadly applicable and training gaps to be considered for improvement. Background. The increased utilization of coordinated disaster response in the United States has resulted in the integration of interdisciplinary professions traditionally taught in segregated “silos.” The lack of interdisciplinary training has been cited as potentially problematic to effective coordinated response. Methods. An anonymous two-page survey identifying current training practices and metrics for effectiveness was distributed, targeting any person potentially involved in a disaster response. Results. Responses were received from 72 professionals, subdivided into fire rescue personnel, law enforcement, government emergency management agencies, private emergency managers, mental health professionals, physicians, and health professional students. Of all respondents, 82% received formal disaster training as defined as a pre- determined curriculum involving at least 50% of classroom-based instruction. 77% participated in a full-scale interdisciplinary disaster response simulation; and, 85% had completed National Incident Management System (NIMS) training. Overall, while all groups valued formal and simulation training, physicians, students and mental health professionals were least likely to have previously participated. Additionally, though there was a general trend towards agreement with statements designed to assess efficacy of training, the average response often included “neutral” within the standard deviation of responses. Conclusion. Progress towards interdisciplinary training has not been uniform across all professions; and among most professions surveyed, this is not strong evidence of comfort and confidence working as interdisciplinary teams.