Dataset Information

The 6 E Framework of Public Health Preparedness for Mass Gatherings-Lessons Learned From Super Bowl LIII, Fulton County, Georgia, 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Context

On February 3, 2019, Atlanta, Georgia, hosted Super Bowl LIII, which is classified as a National Special Security Event. The festivities comprising this major sporting event brought approximately half a million people to Atlanta, which posed significant challenges to the local public health community. As the lead local agency for public health planning, preparedness, and response efforts, Fulton County Board of Health (FCBOH) needed to address multiple specific tasks based on core functional areas outlined in the Emergency Support Function (ESF) 8 (eg, bioterrorism preparedness and epidemiological surveillance).

Program

To prepare for the Super Bowl, FCBOH developed a systematic approach to ensure community-wide public health preparedness for mass gatherings. This approach came to be known as the 6 E framework, which consists of (1) engaging stakeholders, (2) examining current capabilities and identifying gaps, (3) establishing roles and responsibilities, (4) executing plans to fill gaps, (5) exercising plans, and (6) evaluating impact.

Implementation

We define each step of the 6 E framework and present practical examples of how FCBOH implemented each step when preparing for the Super Bowl. Challenges that FCBOH faced and the lessons learned in the process are illustrated. The 6 E framework provides a systematic approach to community preparedness and allows local health departments to tailor the approach to serve local public health needs.

Evaluation

The successful implementation of the 6 E framework allowed for stakeholders at the federal, state, and local levels (including law enforcement) to effectively coordinate an epidemiological investigation and response when 4 staff members reported gastrointestinal symptoms after eating at a feeding station.

Discussion

Preparation for the Super Bowl required months of diligent cross-sectoral and cross-jurisdictional partnership building, and the 6 E framework can help other local public health jurisdictions prepare to host major mass gatherings.

SUBMITTER: Murthy NC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8291143 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The attainment of global health security goals and universal health coverage will remain a mirage unless African health systems are adequately funded to improve resilience to public health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the global inequity in accessing medical countermeasures, leaving African countries far behind. As we anticipate the next pandemic, improving investments in health systems to adequately finance pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR) promptly, ensuring equity and access to medical countermeasures, is crucial. In this article, we analyze the African and global pandemic financing initiatives and put ways forward for policymakers and the global health community to consider. This article is based on a rapid literature review and desk review of various PPPR financing mechanisms in Africa and globally. Consultation of leaders and experts in the area and scrutinization of various related meeting reports and decisions have been carried out. The African Union (AU) has demonstrated various innovative financing mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of public health emergencies in the continent. To improve equal access to the COVID-19 medical countermeasures, the AU launched Africa Medical Supplies Platform (AMSP) and Africa Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT). These financing initiatives were instrumental in mitigating the impacts of COVID-19 and their lessons can be capitalized as we make efforts for PPPR. The COVID-19 Response Fund, subsequently converted into the African Epidemics Fund (AEF), is another innovative financing mechanism to ensure sustainable and self-reliant PPPR efforts. The global initiatives for financing PPPR include the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF) and the Pandemic Fund. The PEF was criticized for its inadequacy in building resilient health systems, primarily because the fund ignored the prevention and preparedness items. The Pandemic Fund is also being criticized for its suboptimal emphasis on the response aspect of the pandemic and non-inclusive governance structure. To ensure optimal financing for PPPR, we call upon the global health community and decision-makers to focus on the harmonization of financing efforts for PPPR, make regional financing mechanisms central to global PPPR financing efforts, and ensure the inclusivity of international finance governance systems.

Project description:Long-term care facility (LTCF) residents are at particularly high risk for morbidity and mortality associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), given their age and high prevalence of chronic medical conditions, combined with functional impairment that often requires frequent, close contact with health care providers, who might inadvertently spread the virus to residents (1,2). During March-May 2020 in Fulton County, Georgia, >50% of COVID-19-associated deaths occurred among LTCF residents, although these persons represented <1% of the population (3,4). Mass testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been an effective strategy for identifying asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections in LTCFs (5). This analysis sought to evaluate the timing at which mass testing took place in relation to the known presence of a COVID-19 infection and the resulting number of infections that occurred. In 15 LTCFs that performed facility-wide testing in response to an identified case, high prevalences of additional cases in residents and staff members were found at initial testing (28.0% and 7.4%, respectively), suggesting spread of infection had already occurred by the time the first case was identified. Prevalence was also high during follow-up, with a total of 42.4% of residents and 11.8% of staff members infected overall in the response facilities. In comparison, 13 LTCFs conducted testing as a preventive strategy before a case was identified. Although the majority of these LTCFs identified at least one COVID-19 case, the prevalence was significantly lower at initial testing in both residents and staff members (0.5% and 1.0%, respectively) and overall after follow-up (1.5% and 1.7%, respectively). These findings indicate that early awareness of infections might help facilities prevent potential outbreaks by prioritizing and adhering more strictly to infection prevention and control (IPC) recommendations, resulting in fewer infections than would occur when relying on symptom-based screening (6,7).

Project description:IntroductionDisasters such as earthquakes, conflict, or landslides result in traumatic injuries creating surges in rehabilitation and assistive technology needs, exacerbating pre-existing unmet needs. Disasters frequently occur in countries where existing rehabilitation services are underdeveloped, hindering response to rehabilitation demand surge events.AimsThe primary aim of this scoping review is therefore to synthesize the evidence on rehabilitation and assistive technology preparedness and response of health systems in LMICs to the demand associated with disasters and conflict situations. A secondary aim was to summarize related recommendations identified in the gathered literature.MethodologyA scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework to guide the methodological development. The results are reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. Four bibliographic databases were used: CINHAL, Cochrane, Pubmed, Scopus and. Key international organisations were also contacted. The search period was from 2010-2022. Eligible publications were categorized for analysis under the six World Health Organization health systems buildings blocks.ResultsThe findings of this scoping review suggest that rehabilitation is poorly integrated into health systems disaster preparedness and response in LMICs. Of the 27 studies included in the scoping review, 14 focused on service delivery, 6 on health workforce, 4 on health information systems and 3 on the leadership and governance building block. No study focused on financing nor assistive technology. This review found the most frequently referenced recommendations for actions that should be taken to develop rehabilitation services in disasters to be: the provision early and multi-professional rehabilitation, including the provision of assistive technology and psychological support, integrated community services; disaster response specific training for rehabilitation professionals; advocacy efforts to create awareness of the importance of rehabilitation in disasters; and the integration of rehabilitation into disaster preparedness and response plans.ConclusionFindings of this scoping review suggest that rehabilitation is poorly integrated into health systems disaster preparedness and response in LMIC's, largely due to low awareness of rehabilitation, undeveloped rehabilitation health systems and a lack of rehabilitation professionals, and disaster specific training for them. The paucity of available evidence hinders advocacy efforts for rehabilitation in disaster settings and limits the sharing of experiences and lessons learnt to improve rehabilitation preparedness and response. Advocacy efforts need to be expanded.