The need for the application of international standards has been evolving over the last decade. Consistency is needed not just in how we respond, but in when we respond. The discussions in this theme reflected on the progress of standard setting both at the local level and internationally.

Details of the methods used are provided in the introductory paper. The chairs moderated all presentations and produced a summary that was presented to an assembly of all of the delegates. The chairs then presided over a workshop that resulted in the generation of a set of action plans that then were reported to the collective group of all delegates.

Main points developed during the presentations and discussion included: (1) requirement of standards of care for ALL disasters and core parameters, (2) process and procedure is best when there is interagency collaboration and coordination, (3) problems in disasters are management-related, not skill-related, and (4) standards of care must encompass evolving emergencies (e.g., emerging diseases, landmines).

The action plans for Theme 5 included: (1) develop positions of standards for management, health and public health, education and training, research, psychosocial aspects, and disaster plans; (2) advocate for actions and task forces to deal with evolving and emerging disasters, terrorism, landmines, and emerging infections; (3) proactively work to advocate and facilitate the multidisciplinary and multiorganizational requirements for disaster management; and (4) develop a resource list of interdisciplinary institutions and activities organized by country and topic including the design and maintenance of a website.

There is a clear need for international standards for the management of disasters. Positions and advocacy for these positions are required to define and implement such standards.

Multidisciplinary team interaction has become a commonplace phrase in the discussion of disaster response. Theme 6 explored multidisciplinary team interactions and attempted to identify some of the key issues and possible solutions to the seemingly intractable problems inherent in this endeavour.

Details of the methods used are provided in the introductory paper. The Cochairs moderated all presentations and produced a summary that was presented to an assembly of all of the delegates. The Cochairs then presided over a workshop that resulted in the generation of a set of Action Plans that then were reported to the collective group of all delegates.

Main points developed during the presentations and discussion included: (1) promotion of multidisciplinary collaboration, (2) standardization, (3) the Incident Command System, (4) professionalism, (5) regional disparities, and (6) psychosocial impact.

Action plans recommended: (1) a standardized template for Needs Assessment be developed, implemented, and applied using collaboration with international organizations, focusing on needs and criteria appropriate to each type of event, and (2) team needs assessments be recognized for local responses and for determination of when international assistance may be required, for planning a command system, and for evaluating the psychosocial impact.

There is a clear need for the development of standardized methods for the assessment of needs, development and implementation of a command structure, and for appreciation of regional differences and the psychosocial impact of all interventions.

The discussions in this theme provided an opportunity to share specific experiences with disasters that occurred outside of the Asia-Pacific Rim.

Details of the methods used are provided in the preceding paper. The chairs moderated all presentations and produced a summary that was presented to an assembly of all of the delegates. Since the findings from the Theme 7 and Theme 3 groups were similar, the chairs of both groups presided over one workshop that resulted in the generation of a set of action plans that then were reported to the collective group of all delegates.

The main points developed during the presentations and discussion included: (1) disaster response planning, (2) predetermined command and organizational structure, (3) rapid response capability, (4) mitigation, and (5) communications and alternatives.

The action plans presented are in common with those presented by Theme 3, and include: (1) plan disaster responses including the different types, identification of hazards, training based on experiences, and provision of public education; (2) improving coordination and control; (3) maintaining communications assuming infrastructure breakdown; (4) maximizing mitigation through standardized evaluations, creation of a legal framework, and recognition of advocacy and public participation; and (5) providing resources and knowledge through access to existing therapies, using the media, and increasing decentralization of hospital inventories.

Most of the problems that occurred outside the Asia-Pacific rim relative to disaster management are similar to those experienced within it. They should be addressed in common with the rest of the world.

Change must begin with education. Theme 8 explored issues that need attention in Disaster Medicine education.

Details of the methods used are provided in the introductory paper. The chairs moderated all presentations and produced a summary that was presented to an assembly of all of the delegates. The chairs then presided over a workshop that resulted in the generation of a set of action plans that then were reported to the collective group of all delegates.

Main points developed during the presentations and discussion included: (1) formal education, (2) standardized definitions, (3) integration (4) evaluation of programs and interventions, (5) international cooperation, (6) identifying the psychosocial consequences of disaster, (7) meaningful research, and (8) hazard, impact, risk and vulnerability analysis.

Three main components of the action plans were identified as evaluation, research, and education. The action plans recommended that: (1) education on disasters should be formalized, (2) evaluation of education and interventions must be improved, and (3) meaningful research should be promulgated and published for use at multiple levels and that applied research techniques be the subject of future conferences.

The one unanimous conclusion was that we need more and better education on the disaster phenomenon, both in its impacts and in our response to them. Such education must be increasingly evidence-based.