Search

Research was conducted on how rural emergency managers at the local level understand and employ the National Incident Management System in 2007. This article focuses on research findings from face-to-face interviews with county emergency managers in three states. The data revealed that the majority of emergency managers interviewed interpret NIMS in a generally positive manner; however, they do so with considerable qualification. Emergency managers recognized that their interpretation of NIMS plays a role in how they comply with and implement NIMS; however, it was discovered that it is not the emergency managers' interpretation that determines compliance and implementation as much as it is factors related to local reality. The unique amalgamation of emergency manager interpretations and local reality produced large variation in NIMS compliance and implementation-no two emergency managers and no two counties were exactly alike. Therefore, though the federal government mandated its expectations and standards for emergency management through NIMS, both people and aspects of place dictate the mandate's interpretation and implementation. Based on findings from the research, implications of findings for emergency management are discussed and suggestions are made for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incident reporting systems have become a central mechanism of most health services patient safety strategies. In this article we compare health professionals' anonymous, free text responses in an evaluation of a newly implemented electronic incident management system. The professions' answers were compared using classic content analysis and Leximancer, a computer assisted text analysis package. The classic analysis identified issues which differentiated the professions. More doctors commented on lack of feedback following incidents and evaluated the system negatively. More allied health staff found that the system lacked fields necessary to report incidents. More nurses complained incident reporting was time consuming. The Leximancer analysis revealed that while the professions all used the more frequently employed concepts (which described basic components of the reporting system), nurses and allied health shared many additional concepts concerned with actual reporting. Doctors applied fewer and more unique (used only by one profession) concepts when writing about the system. Doctors' unique concepts centred on criticism of the incident management system and the broader implications of safety issues, while the other professions' unique concepts focused on more practical issues. The classic analysis identified specific problems needing to be targeted in ongoing modifications of the system. The Leximancer findings, while complementing the classical analysis results, gave greater insight into professional groups' attitudes that relate to use of the system, e.g. doctors' relatively limited conceptual vocabulary regarding the system was consistent with their lower incident reporting rates. Such professional differences in reaction to healthcare innovations may constrain inter-disciplinary communication and cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]