Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:22:17.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using a Geographic Information System (GIS) to Assess Pediatric Surge Potential After an Earthquake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Jacqueline W. Curtis ,
Andrew Curtis  and
Jeffrey S. Upperman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Geographic information systems (GIS) and geospatial technology (GT) can help hospitals improve plans for postdisaster surge by assessing numbers of potential patients in a catchment area and providing estimates of special needs populations, such as pediatrics. In this study, census-derived variables are computed for blockgroups within a 3-mile radius from Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) and from Los Angeles County–University of Southern California (LAC–USC) Medical Center. Landslide and liquefaction zones are overlaid on US Census Bureau blockgroups. Units that intersect with the hazard zones are selected for computation of pediatric surge potential in case of an earthquake. In addition, cartographic visualization and cluster analysis are performed on the entire 3-mile study area to identify hot spots of socially vulnerable populations. The results suggest the need for locally specified vulnerability models for pediatric populations. GIS and GT have untapped potential to contribute local specificity to planning for surge potential after a disaster. Although this case focuses on an earthquake hazard, the methodology is appropriate for an all-hazards approach. With the advent of Google Earth, GIS output can now be easily shared with medical personnel for broader application and improvement in planning.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:163–169)

Keywords

geographic information systems (GIS)geospatial technologies (GT)vulnerability, pediatric, surgegeographycommunity disaster responsesurge capacityearthquakeshospitalsLos AngelesCaliforniadisaster planning
Type
Concepts in Disaster Medicine
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 163 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Gunes, AE, Kovel, JP.Using GIS in emergency operations. J Urban Plann Dev. 2000;126:136–149.Google Scholar
2.Mills, JW.Understanding disaster: GI science contributions to the ongoing recovery from Katrina. Guest editorial. Trans GIS. 2008;12:1–4.Google Scholar
3.Mills, JW, Curtis, A, Pine, JC, et alThe clearinghouse concept: a model for geospatial data centralization and dissemination in a disaster. Disasters. 2008;32 (3):467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cutter, SL.GI science, disasters, and emergency management. Trans GIS. 2003;7 (4):439–445.Google Scholar
5.Dash, N.The use of geographical information systems in disaster research. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters. 1997;15:135–146.Google Scholar
6.National Research Council (NRC). Successful Response Starts With a Map: Improving Geospatial Support for Disaster Management. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.Google Scholar
7.Alexander, D.On the spatial pattern of casualties in earthquakes. Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10 (1):1–4.Google Scholar
8.Cutter, SL, Mitchell, JT, Scott, MS.Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2000;90:713–737.Google Scholar
9.Alexander, D.Death and injury in earthquakes. Disasters. 1985;9 (1):57–60.Google Scholar
10.Noji, E.The Public Health Consequences of Disasters. New York, New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
11.Gausche-Hill, M, Schmitz, C, Lewis, RJ.Pediatric preparedness of US emergency departments: a 2003 survey. Pediatrics. 2007;120 (6):1229–1237.Google Scholar
12.Redlener, I.Americans at Risk: Why We Are Not Prepared for Megadisasters and What We Can Do Now. New York, New York: Alfred A Knopf; 2006.Google Scholar
13.Fawcett, W, Oliveira, CS.Casualty treatment after earthquake disasters: development of a regional simulation model. Disasters. 2000;24 (3):271–287.Google Scholar
14.Morrow, BH.Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters. 1999;23 (1):1–18.Google Scholar
15.Cutter, SL, Boruff, BJ, Shirley, WL.Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q. 2003;84:242–261.Google Scholar
16.Peek-Asa, C, Kraus, JF, Bourque, LB, Vimalachandra, D, Yu, J, Abrams, J.Fatal and hospitalized injuries resulting from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27 (3):459–465.Google Scholar
17.Shoaf, KI, Sareen, HR, Nguyen, LH, Bourque, LB.Injuries as a result of California earthquakes in the past decade. Disasters. 1998;22 (3):218–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Peek-Asa, C, Ramirez, M, Seligson, H, Shoaf, K.Seismic, structural, and individual factors associated with earthquake related injury. Inj Prev. 2003;9 (1):62–66.Google Scholar
19.Ramirez, M, Peek-Asa, C.Epidemiology of traumatic injuries from earthquakes. Epidemiol Rev. 2005;27:47–55.Google Scholar
20.Peek-Asa, C, Ramirez, MR, Shoaf, K, Seligson, H, Kraus, JF.GIS mapping of earthquake-related deaths and hospital admissions from the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10 (1):5–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Anselin, L.Local indicators of spatial association–LISA. Geogr Anal. 1995;27:93–115.Google Scholar
22.Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science. GeoDa. Version 0.9.5i, beta release. http://www.csiss.org/clearinghouse/GeoDa.Google Scholar
23.ArcScene [computer program]. Version 9.3. Redlands, California: Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI).Google Scholar
24.Goldenberg, A, Shmueli, G, Caruana, RA, Fienberg, SE.Early statistical detection of anthrax outbreaks by tracking over-the-counter medication sales. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99 (8):5237–5240.Google Scholar
25.Reingold, A.If syndromic surveillance is the answer, what is the question? Biosecur Bioterror. 2003;1 (2):77–81.Google Scholar
26.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50:1–130.Google Scholar
27.Curtis, A, Mills, JW, Kennedy, B, et alIncorporating a spatial video acquisition system into disaster response and recovery: a case study of the Lower 9th Ward. J Contingencies Crisis Manage. 2007;15:208–291.Google Scholar