Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:49:15.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to Choose? Using the Delphi Method to Develop Consensus Triggers and Indicators for Disaster Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2017

Rebecca Lis ,
Vicki Sakata  and
Onora Lien
Rebecca Lis*
Affiliation:
Northwest Healthcare Response Network, Tukwila, Washington
Vicki Sakata*
Affiliation:
Northwest Healthcare Response Network, Tukwila, Washington Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital, MultiCare Health System, Tacoma, Washington, and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Onora Lien
Affiliation:
Northwest Healthcare Response Network, Tukwila, Washington
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Rebecca Lis, MPH, Northwest Healthcare Response Network, 7100 Fort Dent Way, Suite 210, Tukwila, WA 98188 (e-mail: [email protected]) or Vicki Sakata MD, FAAEM, FAAP, Northwest Healthcare Response Network, 7100 Fort Dent Way, Suite 210, Tukwila, WA 98188 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Correspondence and reprint requests to Rebecca Lis, MPH, Northwest Healthcare Response Network, 7100 Fort Dent Way, Suite 210, Tukwila, WA 98188 (e-mail: [email protected]) or Vicki Sakata MD, FAAEM, FAAP, Northwest Healthcare Response Network, 7100 Fort Dent Way, Suite 210, Tukwila, WA 98188 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To identify key decisions along the continuum of care (conventional, contingency, and crisis) and the critical triggers and data elements used to inform those decisions concerning public health and health care response during an emergency.

Methods

A classic Delphi method, a consensus-building survey technique, was used with clinicians around Washington State to identify regional triggers and indicators. Additionally, using a modified Delphi method, we combined a workshop and single-round survey with panelists from public health (state and local) and health care coalitions to identify consensus state-level triggers and indicators.

Results

In the clinical survey, 122 of 223 proposed triggers or indicators (43.7%) reached consensus and were deemed important in regional decision-making during a disaster. In the state-level survey, 110 of 140 proposed triggers or indicators (78.6%) reached consensus and were deemed important in state-level decision-making during a disaster.

Conclusions

The identification of consensus triggers and indicators for health care emergency response is crucial in supporting a comprehensive health care situational awareness process. This can inform the creation of standardized questions to ask health care, public health, and other partners to support decision-making during a response. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:467–472)

Keywords

health care emergency preparednesshealth care public health decision-makingtriggers/indicatorscrisis standards of care
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 467 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2017 

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

1. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Healthcare Preparedness Capabilities: National Guidance for Healthcare System Preparedness. http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/hpp/reports/Documents/capabilities.pdf. Published January 2012. Accessed February 4, 2016.Google Scholar
2. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Guidance for Establishing Standards of Care for Use in Disaster Situations. Guidance for Establishing Crisis Standards of Care for Use in Disaster Situations: A Letter Report. Altevogt BM, Stroud C, Hanson SL, Hanfling D, Gostin LO, eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219958/. Accessed July 28, 2015.Google Scholar
3. Committee on Crisis Standards of Care. A Toolkit for Indicators and Triggers, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine. In: Hanfling D, Hick JL, Stroud C, eds. Crisis Standards of Care: A Toolkit for Indicators and Triggers. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202385/. Accessed July 28, 2015.Google Scholar
4. Carley, SD, Mackway-Jones, K, Donnan, S. Delphi study into planning for care of children in major incidents. Arch Dis Child. 1999;80(5):406-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.80.5.406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Crawford, IWF, Mackway-Jones, K, Russell, DR, et al. Delphi based consensus study into planning for chemical incidents. Emerg Med J. 2004;21(1):24-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emj.2003.003087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Randic, L, Carley, S, Mackway-Jones, K, et al. Planning for major burns incidents in the UK using an accelerated Delphi technique. Burns. 2002;28(5):405-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-4179(02)00108-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Fukasawa, M, Suzuki, Y, Nakajima, S, Asano, K, Narisawa, T, Kim, Y. Systematic consensus building on disaster mental health services after the Great East Japan Earthquake by phase. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(4):359-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2015.13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Zhong, S, Clark, M, Hou, X-Y, et al. Development of key indicators of hospital resilience: a modified Delphi study. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2015;20(2):74-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1355819614561537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Lerner, EB, McKee, CH, Cady, CE, et al. A consensus-based gold standard for the evaluation of mass casualty triage systems. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2015;19(2):267-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10903127.2014.959222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Christian, MD, Sprung, CL, King, MA, et al. Triage: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement. Chest. 2014;146(4)(suppl):e61S-e74S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.14-0736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Duncan, EAS, Colver, K, Dougall, N, et al. Consensus on items and quantities of clinical equipment required to deal with a mass casualties big bang incident: a national Delphi study. BMC Emerg Med. 2014;14(1):5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-227X-14-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Keeney, S, Hasson, F, McKenna, HP. The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444392029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Washington State Department of Health. Human Subjects and Public Health Practice Guidelines for Ethical Data Collection. http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/5500/HumSubjGuide.pdf. Published December 11, 2008. Accessed August 20, 2015.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lis supplementary material

Lis supplementary material

Download Lis supplementary material(File)
File 63.9 KB