Response of Public Health Workers to

Various Emergencies
by Cristi L. DeSimone, MPH

research Abstract
In recent years, emergency preparedness has continued to be a major focus for many health care providers. This study
measured public health workers opinions on disaster preparedness, assessed workers likelihood of reporting to various
types of disasters, and evaluated conditions that will encourage workers to report to work. A focus group and literature
search were conducted to inform a survey that would assess attitudes about disasters. Frequencies were calculated on
survey responses. Most respondents believed other employees could perform their jobs during a disaster; however, fewer
than two thirds thought their coworkers would report to work under such circumstances. Fewer than three fourths of respondents would report to work during an emergency involving a known chemical, an unknown biological, a radiological,
a biological incurable, or an unknown chemical agent. These results indicate training gaps that should be addressed in
future training sessions at the two health departments surveyed.

unding for state preparedness programs increased

from $67 million in fiscal year 2001 to $1 billion
in fiscal year 2002 (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2002). Congress passed the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which allocated funds for the creation of the Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program
of the Health Resources and Services Administration
(Niska & Burt, 2006). Funding through this Act has been
awarded to health departments in the District of Columbia, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago annually
since 2002 to enhance their ability to respond to domestic bioterrorism threats (Niska & Burt). A central part of
Homeland Securitys plan to keep America safe is the
Project Bioshield Act. This Act, passed in 2004, provided
$5.6 billion for the development of novel vaccines and
remedies for agents most likely to be used in a terrorist
event (Wright, 2004).

A Possible Lack of Health Care

Workers in an Emergency
Studies addressing hospital and public health preparedness for emergencies have addressed staff training (Alexander & Wynia, 2003; Balicer, Omer, Barnett,
& Everly, 2006; Qureshi et al., 2005; Qureshi, Merrill,
Gershon, & Calero-Breckheimer, 2002; Syrett, Benitez,
Livingston, & Davis, 2007), surge capacity (Alexander
& Wynia; Qureshi et al., 2005; Syrett et al.), and partnerships with other health care agencies and public health
departments (Alexander & Wynia; Niska & Burt, 2006;
Qureshi et al., 2005; Syrett et al.). However, it has been
noted that employees of health care facilities might not
report to work in sufficient numbers to successfully activate emergency plans (Alexander & Wynia; Balicer et al.;
Qureshi et al., 2002, 2005; Syrett et al.). Studies conducted with health care workers regarding their likelihood of
reporting to work during an emergency are few.

About the Author

Literature Review
A study was conducted in New York to determine if
health care workers would report to work during various

Ms. DeSimone is a medical technologist, WCHD, Kansas City, KS.

january 2009, vol. 57, no. 1

17

Applying Research to Practice

A survey like the one used in this study could
be distributed in other facilities to assess employees responses to disasters. The responses could help target future training needs
unique to each facility. Barriers to reporting
during disasters could be uncovered and, possibly, addressed before an emergency occurs.
Incentives for employees to report to work
during a disaster could be found and implemented. Essentially, surveys like this help to
ensure that a larger, more effective work force
is available to meet the increased demands
during a disaster.

emergencies (Syrett et al., 2007). Approximately 80% of

the workers indicated they would report to work before
the details of the scenario were revealed. Depending on
agent contagion, if workers were married or had children,
if treatment was experimental, the location of the treatment, and if treatment was offered to family, the percentage indicating they would report to work after details of
the scenarios were revealed ranged from 29% to 84%
(Syrett et al.).
A survey was distributed to Maryland health departments to determine respondents attitudes about an influenza pandemic (Balicer et al., 2006). Approximately half
(53.8%) of the staff indicated they would report to work
in an emergency. Professional staff were more likely to
report to work than clerical or support staff. Likelihood
of reporting to work increased among those who believed
they were integral to the health department response,
could communicate risk, and were familiar with their
own roles in an emergency.
Public health nurses from the New York City Department of Health attended emergency preparedness training. Before attending the training program, 96% of the
nurses surveyed indicated it was their duty to report to
work in an emergency, 70% reported that they planned
to work during an emergency, and 38% reported they believed their coworkers would report to work during an
emergency (Qureshi et al., 2002). After completing the
training program, 100% of the attendees indicated it was
their duty to report to work during an emergency, 82%
intended to report to work in an emergency, and still only
38% believed their coworkers would report to work in an
emergency. In this study, most frequently cited barriers to
reporting to work in emergencies included lack of child
care, lack of transportation, and personal health issues.
Another study assessed private sector health care
workers willingness and ability to report to work in
emergencies, including barriers that might affect workers attitudes toward reporting to work (Qureshi et al.,
2005). Researchers found several barriers were reported
that could negatively influence health care workers ability and willingness to report to work in an emergency.

18

The most frequent barriers that could possibly hamper

ability to report to work included transportation (33.4%),
child care (29.1%), personal health concerns (14.9%),
elder care (10.7%), pet care (7.8%), and second jobs
(2.5%). The most frequent reasons reported for being unwilling to report to work included fear for familys safety
(47.1%), personal safety (31.1%), personal health problems (13.5%), and child care or elder care issues (1.4%).
Other studies have measured mainly private sector workers attitudes toward working with biological agents in
emergencies and have found similar results (Alexander &
Wynia, 2003; Koh et al., 2005).
Because some health departments offer adult and
child direct care clinics as well as emergency preparedness departments, it is feasible that public health care
workers could be among the first responders in an emergency. Public health agencies will also be heavily involved in epidemiologic investigations and surveillance,
and leadership in the command and the emergency operations centers. Additionally, a study of private sector
nurses revealed that nurses would request the assistance
of public health departments in large-scale disasters
(OBoyle, Robertson, & Secor-Turner, 2006). These studies demonstrate public healths crucial role in disasters.
This study attempted to evaluate public health workers
responses to several types of emergencies, attitudes about
disaster preparedness, and barriers to reporting to work
during emergencies.
Project Objectives and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to determine how
many and which groups of health care workers from two
county health departments (WCHD and JCHD) would
work when needed during various types of emergencies.
Attitudes about disaster preparedness were also assessed,
as were barriers to reporting to work when needed during
an emergency.
The first hypothesis tested in this study was that
clinical professionals, respondents who live less than 11
miles from work, and respondents with no children are
more likely to indicate they would report to work during
an emergency than other health department staff. The second hypothesis was that the overall percentage of public
health professionals reporting to work would decrease in
a biological, radiological, or chemical event as opposed
to a natural disaster or an event with high morbidity and
mortality that did not involve a biological, chemical, or
radiological agent.
Methods
Focus Group

An e-mail was sent to employees of the WCHD requesting focus group volunteers. The focus group script
was developed using guidelines from two graduate school
professors. A focus group of 11 public health workers
(four nurses, one administrator, and six other professionals) was assembled from volunteers who responded to the
e-mail. The purpose of the focus group was to ascertain
employees willingness to report to work during various
types of emergencies, barriers to working during emer-

AAOHN Journal

gencies, and attitudes about disaster preparedness. Possible ways to overcome barriers to working during disasters
were also evaluated. The focus group participants were
eligible to complete the survey.
Common themes mentioned in the focus group included responses to various types of emergencies, the
need for communication with family, workers, and the
outside world about the disaster itself, workers compensation and extra compensation for working during emergencies, child care, and transportation issues. The results
of the focus group were collected and compared to previous studies (OBoyle et al., 2006; Qureshi et al., 2002,
2005; Syrett et al., 2007) of worker responses to various
types of disasters and concerns that might prevent workers from reporting to work when needed in an emergency.
These data informed the development of a survey that
encompasses the most common types of disasters and
disaster preparedness concerns, common issues and barriers related to reporting to work in emergencies, and demographics. Survey questions were then evaluated by one
of the graduate school professors and focus group volunteers for wording and to ensure the survey captured the
most common concerns about and barriers to reporting
during disasters. The Sidebar contains the final survey.
WCHD employs approximately 110 individuals.
JCHD has two locations and employs approximately 115
individuals. A link to the survey was sent by e-mail to
an advocate at JCHD who then forwarded the link to all
employees of JCHD. All WCHD employees were sent a
link to the survey directly by e-mail. Participation was
voluntary. The survey and survey website did not capture
personal information, so responses were confidential. Because the sample was small, any employee who wanted to
answer the survey was able to respond. Reminder e-mails
were sent approximately 1 week after the initial e-mail to
remind potential respondents to answer the survey if they
had not already. The survey was available on the website
for 2 weeks.
Survey Analysis

Data from the survey were entered into SPSS, version 15.0, software. Multiple responses to questions that
required a single answer were not used in calculations.
Frequencies were calculated for each question on the survey. Because child care, transportation, and job classification were found in previous studies to influence whether
an individual reported for work in a disaster (Qureshi et
al., 2005; Syrett et al., 2007), chi-square was calculated to
determine the relationship between having a child younger than 18, being a non-clinical professional, and having
a long commute to work and reporting for work during
disasters.
Several questions that had four choices on the initial survey had those choices combined into two because
of too few respondents to meet statistical assumptions of
analysis of variance. For example, age groups of 18 years
to 29 years and 30 years to 44 years were combined into a
group of 18 years to 44 years and age groups of 45 years
to 60 years and older than 61 years were combined into
a group of 45 years to 100 years. The job classification

january 2009, vol. 57, no. 1

question was divided into clinical (nurses and physicians)

and non-clinical (administrative, clerical, and other). The
years in the profession and years with this employer were
divided into less than 11 years and 11 years or greater.
Distance from employer was divided into less than 11
miles from work and 11 miles or greater from work.
Marital status was categorized as single (widowed and divorced were included in this category) or married. Health
status was divided into good or fair/poor.
Results
Demographics

One hundred thirty-one surveys were received from

the two health departments, a 58% response rate. The
largest response group was between 30 years and 44 years
(40.5%). The majority of those who responded to the survey at both health departments reported being female
(87%) and married (65.6%). Most respondents described
their profession as nursing (31.3%). The greatest number
of those surveyed had been in their profession more than
20 years (31.3%) but with their current employer less than
5 years (48.1%). The majority of respondents (57.3%) did
not have a child younger than age 18 living in their home.
Participants were most likely to report being between 5
and 10 miles from their place of employment (38.9%).
The health status of respondents was mainly reported as
good (78.6%).
Attitudes on Disaster Preparedness

More than two thirds of the respondents (71%) reported being familiar with their roles in a disaster. Almost
all (89.3%) of those who responded reported that other
employees could perform their job duties in an emergency. Almost two thirds (61.8%) of respondents indicated
that their coworkers would report to work when needed
in an emergency. More than three fourths (79.4%) of respondents reported that their employer had a good overall
plan for emergencies. The vast majority of those who responded to the survey (87%) reported that their employer
would provide personal protective equipment (PPE) in
an emergency, PPE at their workplace is updated regularly (78.7%), and they would be able to use PPE in an
emergency (73.3%). However, when asked about where
PPE is stored in their facility, substantially fewer employees (45.8%) knew where to secure this equipment in a
disaster. Most employees who responded indicated they
believed that information about the disaster itself would
influence whether they would report to work (61.8%).
Attitudes by Type of Disaster

Almost all survey respondents indicated they would

report to work in a natural disaster (92.4%), and most indicated they would report to work during an emergency
with high morbidity or mortality (86.3%). The percentages were lower, however, when a greater possibility of
agent transmission that could result in serious disability or
even death existed. The percentages of respondents who
indicated they would report to work in terrorist attacks
included 60.3% for a known chemical weapon, 51.1% for
an unknown biological weapon, 48.9% for a radiological

19

Survey: Health Care Worker Response to an

Emergency
Attitudes:
1) Are you clear what your role would be in the event of an
emergency?
A. Yes
B. No
2) Do you believe that there are other workers who could
perform your job during an emergency?
A. Yes
B. No
3) Does your employer have a good overall plan for emergencies?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Dont know
4) Do you believe that your employer would provide you with
adequate protective equipment in the event of an emergency?
A. Yes
B. No
5) Do you know how to use the personal protective equipment provided?
A. Yes
B. No
6) Do you know where personal protective equipment is
stored at your place of employment?
A. Yes
B. No
7) Is the personal protective equipment updated at your
place of employment?
A. Yes
B. No
8) Do you believe that most of your coworkers would report
to work in an emergency?
A. Yes
B. No
9) Would accurate, timely information on the disaster before
you are due to report to work influence whether you would
report to work?
A. Yes
B. No
10) Would you be willing to report to work in the following
emergencies:
Natural disaster (e.g., flood or tornado)?
A. Yes
B. No
An incident with high morbidity or mortality (e.g., explosion
or building collapse)?
A. Yes
B. No
A terrorist attack using the following:
Chemical attack with a known chemical (e.g., sarin or
mustard gas)?
A. Yes
B. No
Chemical attack with an unknown chemical?
A. Yes
B. No
Radiological attack?
A. Yes
B. No
Biological attack with a known infective agent that can be
cured (e.g., plague or anthrax)?
A. Yes

20

B. No
Biological attack with a known infective agent that cannot be
cured (e.g., viral hemorrhagic fevers)?
A. Yes
B. No
Biological attack with an unknown infective agent?
A. Yes
B. No
Natural outbreak of known disease (e.g., severe acute respiratory syndrome or pandemic flu)?
A. Yes
B. No
11) Would the chances of your reporting to work increase if
you were ensured to receive:
_Workers compensation?
_Additional compensation for emergencies?
_Adequate personal protective equipment?
_Timely updates on your familys well-being?
_Timely updates on the emergency while you are at work?
_A fixed length of time that you would have at work and off
work?
Demographics:
12) What is your age group?
A. 1829 years
B. 3044 years
C. 4560 years
D. > 61 years
13) What is your sex?
A. Male
B. Female
14) What job classification is most applicable to your current
employment position?
A. Physician
B. Nurse
C. Clerical staff
D. Administrative
E. Other health professional
15) How close are you to your place of employment?
A. < 5 miles
B. 510 miles
C. 1120 miles
D. > 20 miles
16) How many years have you been in your profession?
A. < 5
B. 510
C. 1120
D. > 20
17) How many years have you been with your current
employer?
A. < 5
B. 510
C. 1120
D. > 20
18) What is your marital status?
A. Single
B. Divorced
C. Married
D. Widowed
19) Do you have at least one child living in the home
younger than 18 years?
A. Yes
B. No
20) What is your health status?
A. Good
B. Fair
C. Poor

AAOHN Journal

weapon, 48.1% for an incurable biological weapon, and

46.6% for an unknown chemical weapon. The number
of employees who indicated they would report to work
increased when the employee was told the resulting illness could be cured or the illness was caused by a natural
disease process. The percentage of respondents who indicated they would report to work in an outbreak of a biological curable agent was 75.6%. For a natural outbreak
of a known disease, the percentage of respondents who
indicated they would report to work was 80.9%.
Several conditions were found to substantially increase the likelihood of WCHD and JCHD employees
reporting to work in an emergency. The most important
was prompt updates on respondents family members.
Timely updates on the emergency were also found to be
significant predictors of workers reporting to work during a disaster. Providing adequate PPE was important to
those who responded. Most reported that a fixed work
shift in an emergency was also important. More than
three fourths of respondents at the health departments
surveyed reported that workers compensation or another
form of compensation was important to employees who
reported to work.
Statistical Significance of Select Demographics and
Reporting to Work in Emergencies

Having a child younger than 18 years and job classification were statistically significant determinants as to
whether employees of the health departments surveyed
would report to work in particular disasters. Respondents
with a child younger than 18 years were less likely to
report to work during a natural disaster [x2 (1, N = 131) =
3.58, p = .466] or an incident with a biological unknown
weapon [x2 (1, N = 131) = 6.011, p = .198] than respondents who did not have a child younger than 18 years living in their household. Respondents with a clinical job
description were more likely to report to work during a
disaster with high morbidity or mortality [x2 (1, N = 131)
= 4.495, p = .106] or a natural outbreak [x2 (1, N = 131)
= 4.321, p = .115] than respondents who did not have
a clinical job description. No statistically significant association was found for the other disaster scenarios and
having a child younger than 18 or job classification. No
statistically significant association was found for mileage
from work and any of the disaster scenarios.
Discussion
This study had results similar to those in previous
studies. However, 89.3% of respondents believed that
other employees could do their job in an emergency;
yet only 61.8% of respondents believed their coworkers would report to work in a disaster. In addition, only
45.8% reported knowing where to locate PPE at their facility. These results indicate possible training gaps. The
importance of each employees role in a disaster needs
to be emphasized and the location of PPE at each facility
needs to be clarified.
Most employees who responded to this survey stated
they would report to work in a natural disaster or a disaster with high morbidity or mortality. The number of em-

january 2009, vol. 57, no. 1

ployees stating they would report to work for incurable

or untreatable agents of terrorist origin was substantially
lower. Approximately half of the workers who responded
to this survey indicated that they would report to work in
a disaster with a biological incurable or a biological unknown agent. Between 46% and 60% of workers would
report to work if a chemical agent was used. Only 48.9%
of workers would report to work in a disaster with a radiological agent. The number of employees indicating they
would report to work increased if the agent was curable or
not of terrorist origin. More than three fourths of employees reported they would respond to a disaster involving a
natural outbreak of a biological agent or a disaster with a
biological curable agent.
One study found that the highest percentages of
workers reported they would participate in a mass casualty incident (86%) and environmental disasters (84%)
(Qureshi et al., 2005). The disasters with the highest reported participation rates for workers in this study were
natural disasters and disasters with high morbidity or mortality. Slightly less than two thirds of health care workers
indicated willingness to report to work in a smallpox outbreak (Qureshi et al.). A study of physicians found that
only 33% would be willing to treat patients with smallpox
if the physicians themselves were unvaccinated (Alexander & Wynia, 2003). An additional study found that only
36% to 37% of workers would report to work in an event
caused by a transmissible biological agent with only experimental treatment (Syrett et al., 2007). These percentages are close to the approximately 50% of workers in
this study reporting they would work in an event caused
by a biological incurable or biological unknown agent.
Slightly more than two thirds (68%) of workers reported
they would work in a chemical event and a little less than
two thirds (57%) of workers reported they would work
in a radiological event (Qureshi et al.). A little less than
two thirds of workers in this study indicated they would
report to work in a disaster involving a known chemical
and less than half reported they would work in an event
caused by a radiological agent. These percentages are
also similar. One study found that approximately half of
health department personnel would report to work in an
influenza pandemic (Balicer et al., 2006). Less than half
of those surveyed in another study were willing to report
to work in a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
outbreak (Qureshi et al.). The percentages in previous
studies differ from the percentage found in this study of
those willing to report to a natural outbreak of a known
disease (80.9%). The differences in these percentages
may be the result of participants not understanding the
question or believing as long as an agent is not of terrorist
origin, it is not dangerous. Another study found that as
long as a biological agent was known, non-transmissible,
and treatable, the percentages of employees who would
report to work ranged from 71% to 81% (Syrett et al.).
This range approximates the 75.6% of respondents who
indicated they would report for work in an event caused
by a biological curable agent.
Because the percentage of respondents who indicated
a willingness to report to work dropped sharply between

21

naturally occurring disasters and terrorist-initiated events,

the results of this study indicate that individuals may be
more afraid of terrorist events than of natural outbreaks
of similar diseases. The percentage of respondents who
would report to work in a natural outbreak such as SARS
or influenza rose substantially (more than three fourths
of respondents at both health departments indicated they
would report for work) from the less than 50% of workers
who reported they would work in an attack with a biological incurable agent of terrorist origin. The ability to cure
the agent involved was also important to workers who
responded in this study. The percentage of workers who
would report to work in an event caused by a biological
curable agent was much higher than for an event caused
by a biological incurable agent (75.6% vs. 48.1%, respectively). Education on possible terrorism agents and assurance of maximum protection from these agents might
achieve a greater response rate in disasters.
Qureshi et al. (2005) found that the most common
barriers to working in emergencies were transportation
and child care. Balicer et al. (2006) discovered that in an
influenza pandemic, clinical staff were 2.5 times more
likely to report to work than technical or support staff.
Also, in a study by Barnett et al. (2005), family concerns
were one of the primary barriers to reporting to work in
an emergency.
Based on these findings, this study sought to determine if living 11 miles or less from work or 11 miles or
greater from work, having a child younger than 18 years
living in the home, and an individuals job classification were significant determinants of whether employees
would work in an emergency. Statistically significant results were found for respondents having a child younger
than 18 years living in the home and reporting to work
for a natural disaster or an event caused by a biological
unknown agent. These results indicated the possibility of
child care barriers in emergencies. Employees might be
concerned about finding child care in disasters or might
be worried about their childrens safety in general. Also,
statistically significant results were found for clinical job
classification and reporting to work in a disaster with high
morbidity or mortality or a natural disaster. Employees
with a clinical job classification might feel more obligated to care for sick or injured individuals, whereas those
without a clinical job classification might not feel they are
needed in disasters. Mileage from work was not found to
influence whether an employee would report to work in a
disaster. This might be because these particular employees lived close enough to work not to worry about transportation in a disaster. These findings are in agreement
with the findings of most previous studies that have mentioned family concerns or child care issues (Barnett et al.,
2005; Qureshi et al., 2002, 2005) and job classification
(Balicer et al., 2006; Qureshi et al., 2005) as variables
that influence whether an individual will report to work
in a disaster, but disagree with studies that have found
transportation issues influence whether an employee will
report to work in a disaster (Qureshi et al., 2005). Reinforcing the importance of each employees role in an
emergency and having a plan for child care for employees

22

might remove these barriers in a disaster. Also, providing

updates on family and the disaster, adequate PPE, a fixed
shift length, and workers compensation or additional
compensation might encourage employees to report to
work during disasters.
More studies are needed in other states, and in both
public and private health care facilities, to determine how
workers respond to disasters, how training requirements
in multiple states impact employees knowledge of disaster protocols, and post-training research to identify
knowledge gaps and employees responses after training
discrepancies have been corrected.
Limitations
One limitation of this study was the small sample
size. Only two health departments were included. The
data could not be analyzed using parametric methods
because too few respondents fell in each category. The
small sample size could have also affected results. Larger sample sizes increase the ability of statistical tests to
detect significant changes in hypotheses tested. A geographical bias might have also been introduced based on
the training requirements for the participating state versus
other states.
Another limitation was that because respondents
knew the results would be provided to their employers,
they might have been reluctant to share their true opinions. An additional limitation was that participants were
not randomized to take the survey. The survey did not take
into account gender differences because of the small sample size. A larger, randomized study with more anonymity for the respondents might reduce these limitations.
Implications for Practice
Occupational health nurses will be asked to care for
sick or injured employees during a disaster. They could
be asked to triage, provide first aid, and dispense medications to employees during an emergency. Knowing how
many health care workers would respond to a disaster
could help employers more effectively plan for a disaster and possibly reduce barriers to employees reporting
to work in disasters. Education on protection in a disaster
and common agents of terrorism could alleviate employees fears of working in emergencies. Occupational health
nurses could be asked to monitor the health of employees
affected by disasters. Better planning for disasters could
alleviate the burden of additional employees being affected by disasters.
SUMMARY
Overall, employees who responded to this survey felt
that they and their employers were well prepared to respond to a disaster. They were less likely to report to work
in emergencies potentially involving substantial morbidity or mortality for those responding. A sizable gap existed between the number of employees who thought coworkers could perform their duties in an emergency and
the number who thought their coworkers would report to
work in an emergency. A statistically significant association was found between having a child younger than 18

AAOHN Journal

years and having a clinical job description and reporting

to work during certain types of disasters. However, no
statistically significant association was found between
increased mileage from work and reporting to work during any of the disasters. Regular updates regarding family members and the emergency, PPE, a fixed work shift,
and workers compensation or additional compensation
substantially increased the probability of these employees
reporting to work during a disaster.
References

Alexander, G. C., & Wynia, M. K. (2003). Ready and willing? Physicians sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Affair, 22(5),
189-197.
Balicer, R. D., Omer, S. B., Barnett, D. J., & Everly, G. S. Jr. (2006).
Local public health workers perceptions toward responding to an
influenza pandemic. BMC Public Health, 6, 99.
Barnett, D. J., Balicer, R. D., Blodgett, D. W., Everly, G. S. Jr., Omer,
S. B., Parker, C. L., et al. (2005). Applying risk perception theory
to public health workforce preparedness training. Journal of Public
Health Management and Practice, 11(6), S33-S37.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008, February 6-7). Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis meeting: Final
record of the proceedings. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from www.
cdc.gov/maso/FACM/pdfs/ACET/20020206ACETminutes.pdf

Health Risk
Assessment
for the
Global Traveler
January 14, 2009
2:00-3:00 PM ET

1 CNE Contact Hour

Koh, D., Lim, M. K., Chia, S. E., Ko, S. M., Qian, F., Ng, V., et al.
(2005). Risk perception and impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) on work and personal lives of health care workers in
Singapore: What can we learn? Medical Care, 43, 676-682.
Niska, R. W., & Burt, C. W. (2006, December 11). Training for terrorism-related conditions in hospitals: United States, 2003-04. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad380.
pdf
OBoyle, C., Robertson, C., & Secor-Turner, M. (2006). Public health
emergencies: Nurses recommendations for effective actions.
AAOHN Journal, 54(8), 347-353.
Qureshi, K., Gershon, R. R. M., Sherman, M. F., Straub, T., Gebbie,
E., McCollum, M., et al. (2005). Health care workers ability and
willingness to report to duty during catastrophic disasters. Journal
of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine,
82(3), 378-388.
Qureshi, K. A., Merrill, J. A., Gershon, R. M., & Calero-Breckheimer,
A. (2002). Emergency preparedness training for public health nurses: A pilot study. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, 79(3), 413-416.
Syrett, J. I., Benitez, J. G., Livingston, W. H. III, & Davis, E. A. (2007).
Will emergency health care providers respond to mass casualty incidents? Prehospital Emergency Care, 11(1), 49-54.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002, June 6). Bioterrorism preparedness grants. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from www.
hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020606b.html
Wright, S. (2004). Taking biodefense too far. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 60(6), 58-66.

About the Program

Carefully recorded details about the traveler and the trip form the basis for a comprehensive
pre-travel prevention plan. Occupational health nurses use this assessment information to
create a strategy for vaccinations, health consulting, referrals and post-trip evaluation.
What You Will Learn Upon completion of this program, the learner will be able to:
Describe ve critical elements of the travel assessment;
Identify three resources for researching trip health and safety hazards; and
Describe one method to prioritize health-consulting topics.
About the Faculty
Gail Rosselot, APRN, BC, MS, MPH, COHN-S, CTH is a certied adult nurse practitioner
and certied occupational health nurse with special expertise in occupational and travel
health. Ms. Rosselot has maintained a private clinical, educational, and consulting practice
in Westchester County, N.Y. since 1992.

AAOHN January Webcasts

www.aaohn.org

Immunization
Update:
Preventable
Disease and the
Global Traveler
January 28, 2009
2:00-3:00 PM ET

1 CNE Contact Hour

About the Program

Global travel can expose even the healthiest among us to disease and associated health
risks. Vaccines can dramatically decrease those risks and are an important part of pre-travel
preparation. This webcast will discuss the three immunization categories and provide updates on
major changes in recommendations, safety and epidemiology.
What You Will Learn Upon completion of this program, the learner will be able to:
Describe pre-travel consultation information needed to make informed decisions on pretravel health care;
Discuss the routes of transmission of important infectious diseases during travel; and
Describe the required, routine and recommended vaccines available to travelers.
About the Faculty
Jeffery A. Goad, Pharm.D., MPH is Associate Professor of Clinical Pharmacy at the University
of Southern California (USC) School of Pharmacy where he runs the USC Student Health and
USC Family Travel Medicine Clinics. Dr. Goad holds certication in travel health from the
International Society of Travel Medicine.

AAOHN is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education (CNE) by the American Nurses Credentialing Centers Commission on Accreditation.
AAOHN is additionally approved as a CNE provider by the California Board of Registered Nursing (#CEP9283) and the Louisiana State Board of Nursing (#LSBN3).

january 2009, vol. 57, no. 1

23