Emergency preparedness is one of the critical roles of public health. Public health facilities have the capabilities of managing emergency occurrence more efficiently by employing the four-phase approach; mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Jennings et al., 2016). The effective use of these approaches by healthcare facilities helps prevent a particular emergency, reduce their impact on society, and improve preparedness for both response and recovery missions (Jennings et al., 2016). As a Director of Health in New Orleans, some priority measures will be instituted during each of the four emergency management phases.
1. Mitigation
The first phase of emergency management is mitigation. Mitigation is the primary goal. This stage is concerned with the reduction or avoidance of severe impacts of disasters. The benefit expected is considered in terms of avoiding future costs. The cost involved with the response and recovery of an incident is much higher than mitigation activities to prevent and reduce the impact of the experience (Jennings et al., 2016). As Director of Health, my priority in this phase is an investment in public information sharing and organization of outreach activities to reduce deaths and destruction of property.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
2. Preparedness
The second phase is preparedness. Preparedness of a public health facility improves the organizational capacity and capability in the management of an emergency. Activities under-preparedness are necessary to the point that mitigation measures cannot prevent the occurrence of a disaster. The preparedness phase allows stakeholders to develop plans to save lives and reduce the impact of the disaster. It involves measures of enhancing response operations by increasing the stock of necessary supplies. Preparedness is a continuous process between the government and non-governmental agencies striving to identify hazards, establish vulnerabilities, and identify resources. In this phase, my major priority would be to develop a proper Emergency Operation Plan, and this will help train the healthcare personnel on specific roles in case of emergency (Jennings et al., 2016). Drills and exercise are conducted regularly to test the operationalization of the Emergency operation plan.
3. Response
The response is the third phase. Response activities begin immediately after an emergency event has occurred—this phase is where the execution of an emergency operation plan is used. The response involves addressing the short term direct effects of an incident. It also consists of reducing the probability of occurrence of secondary damage. Response activities should follow the progression of recognition, report, activation, notification, mobilization, response, and recovery. Healthcare personnel should respond to an incident without prior notice. As health Director my major priority would provide the capacity of medical treatment and supplies to minimize life loss.
4. Recovery
The last phase is the recovery. The primary goal of recovery is to return the society's system to normal. Recovery should start immediately after the emergency. It involves two sets of activities; short-term recovery events, which entails the return of critical life-supporting systems to minimum operating levels. Long-term recoveries events are concerned with permanently returning life to normal (Institute of Medicine, 2015). These events are deemed to continue for a more extended period after incidents. As Director of health, priority consideration for this stage is to ensure the well-being of healthcare personnel. To achieve the personnel's well-being, the activity of mental health check-ups and counseling should be organized. This will help medical personnel to recover from the incident.
In conclusion, the four-phase of emergency management is a fluid progression. The recovery phase provides a learning platform for mitigation, preparedness, and response phase in readiness for the next incident. It is prudent to understand the four stages as an ongoing cycle. It should be noted that mitigation failure and lack of emergency preparation translate to inefficiency in responding and recovering from a hazard when the need arises.
References
Institute of Medicine. (2015). Healthy, resilient, and sustainable communities after disasters: Strategies, opportunities, and planning for recovery . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Jennings, B., Arras, J. D., Barrett, D. H. & Ellis, B. A. (eds). (2016). Emergency ethics: Public health preparedness and response . Oxford University Press
