|
Session Title: Pandemic Influenza and Evaluation Lessons Learned: The H1N1 Outbreak of 2009 - 2010
|
|
Panel Session 314 to be held in CROCKETT A on Thursday, Nov 11, 1:40 PM to 3:10 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Disaster and Emergency Management Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Elizabeth Harris, EMT Associates Inc, eharris@emt.org
|
| Abstract:
CDC-INFO is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s unified, integrated contact center for delivering public health information. It responds to public inquiries by phone, e-mail and by sending CDC publications. CDC-INFO has developed a multi-component performance monitoring, quality improvement, and evaluation system that provides continuous feedback to CDC program managers and policy makers. The H1N1 pandemic posed an emergency response need for CDC-INFO, and a pilot for testing of surveillance measurement capability to be activated in the event of a public health emergency. The panel presents a) the planned approach and purpose, b) the implementation process and a major shift in purpose that emerged from that process, c) the findings and implications, and d) lessons learned.
|
|
CDC-INFO's Role in Responding to Public Health Emergencies
|
| Amy Burnett, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, aburnett@cdc.gov
|
|
CDC-INFO is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s unified, integrated contact center for delivering public health information. It responds to public inquiries by phone, e-mail and by sending CDC publications. CDC-INFO has developed a multi-component performance monitoring, quality improvement, and evaluation system that provides continuous feedback to CDC program managers and policy makers. The H1N1 pandemic posed an emergency response need for CDC-INFO as several key constituent groups sought assistance and information about the outbreak: 1) CDC-INFO handled inquiries from the public (defined as any individual or group seeking health or public health information from CDC); 2) State Health Departments sought assistance in handling the influx of inquiries (e.g. State of New York following school closures); and 3) other hotlines (e.g. 211) sought content to provide to the public when contacting their centers for information about H1N1. The circumstances under which the Emergency Response Survey was developed and launched will be presented in order to provide context for the evaluation considerations and lessons learned (the latter two points to be presented by the remaining panelists).
|
|
|
Evaluating Response to a Public Health Emergency: Reactive or Proactive Approach?
|
| Elizabeth Harris, EMT Associates Inc, eharris@emt.org
|
|
The rationale and methodology for designing evaluation studies which facilitate learning from the public in order to communicate relevant public health messages which will spur desired behaviors will be discussed by the panelist. The role of the Emergency Response survey in the contact of the broader evaluation system will be addressed. The original intent was to collect public health threat assessment and surveillance data in response to a metro, state, regional or multi-state, or national emergency. The CDC-INFO Emergency Response Surveys were planned to be activated only in the event of a public health emergency. The H1N1 outbreak was the first field test of the measure, and the end result was a paradigm shift. The rationale for the shift in the context of the broader comprehensive performance monitoring system for CDC-INFO will be addressed by the panelist.
| |
|
The Public as Key Informant in an Emergency Response Evaluation
|
| Janelle Commins, EMT Associates Inc, jcommins@emt.org
|
|
A major set of lessons concerns the way this Emergency Response evaluation was conducted highlighted the need to better understand the underlying and specific motivations that led the public to seek information from CDC-INFO rather than the multiple alternatives, and the utility of emergency survey results for improving responsive to this audience. The panelist will present on the process of building evaluation methods which account for the public as an active participant rather than a passive audience in the event of a public health emergency and, in the process, complementing responsive, reactive methodologies with proactive mechanisms. The challenges, resolution and contribution of this collaborative evaluation experience will also be discussed.
| |