Search

Objective: To investigate COVID-19 disparities between Hispanic/Latino persons (H/L) and non-H/L persons in an agricultural community by examining behavioral and demographic differences., Methods: In September 2020, we conducted Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee, Washington, to evaluate differences between H/L and non-H/L populations in COVID-19 risk beliefs, prevention practices, household needs, and vaccine acceptability. We produced weighted sample frequencies., Results: More households from predominately H/L census blocks (H/L-CBHs) versus households from predominately non-H/L census blocks (non-H/L-CBHs) worked in essential services (79% versus 57%), could not telework (70% versus 46%), and reported more COVID-19 cases (19% versus 4%). More H/L-CBHs versus non-H/L-CBHs practiced prevention strategies: avoiding gatherings (81% versus 61%), avoiding visiting friends/family (73% versus 36%), and less restaurant dining (indoor 24% versus 39%). More H/L-CBHs versus non-H/L-CBHs needed housing (16% versus 4%) and food assistance (19% versus 6%). COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in H/L-CBHs and non-H/L-CBHs was 42% versus 46%, respectively., Conclusions: Despite practicing prevention measures with greater frequency, H/L-CBHs had more COVID-19 cases. H/L-CBHs worked in conditions with a higher likelihood of exposure. H/L-CBHs had increased housing and food assistance needs due to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine acceptability was similarly low (<50%) between groups.

As the Duwamish Valley community in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. and other environmental justice communities nationally contend with growing risks from climate change, there have been calls for a more community-centered approach to understanding impacts and priorities to inform resilience planning. To engage community members and identify climate justice and resilience priorities, a partnership of community leaders, government-based practitioners, and academics co-produced a survey instrument and collected data from the community using the Seattle Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (SASPER), an approach adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER). In addition, we conducted a process and outcome project evaluation using quantitative survey data collected from volunteers and qualitative semi-structured interviews with project team members. In October and November 2022, teams of volunteers from partner organizations collected 162 surveys from households in the Duwamish Valley. Poor air quality, extreme heat, and wildfires were among the highest reported hazards of concern. Most Duwamish Valley households agreed or strongly agreed that their neighborhood has a strong sense of community (64%) and that they have people nearby to call when they need help (69%). Forty-seven percent of households indicated willingness to get involved with resilience planning, and 62% of households said that they would use a Resilience Hub during an emergency. Survey volunteers evaluated their participation positively, with over 85% agreeing or strongly agreeing that they learned new skills, were prepared for the survey, and would participate in future assessments. The evaluation interviews underscored that while the SASPER may have demonstrated feasibility in a pre-disaster phase, CASPER may not meet all community/partner needs in the immediate disaster response phase because of its lack of focus on equity and logistical requirements. Future research should focus on identifying less resource intensive data collection approaches that maintain the rigor and reputation of CASPER while enabling a focus on equity., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Introduction: It is vital that households are prepared for a natural disaster to help mitigate potential negative impacts. Our goal was to characterize United States household preparedness on a national level to guide next steps to better prepare for and respond to disasters during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We added 10 questions to the existing Porter Novelli's ConsumerStyles surveys in fall 2020 (N = 4,548) and spring 2021 (N = 6,455) to examine factors that contribute to overall household preparedness levels., Results: Being married (odds ratio (OR), 1.2), having children in the home (OR, 1.5), and having a household income of $150,000 or more (OR, 1.2) are all associated with increased preparedness levels. Those in the Northeast are least likely to be prepared (OR, 0.8). Persons living in mobile homes, Recreational Vehicles, boats, or vans are half as likely to have preparedness plans compared to those living in single family homes (OR, 0.6)., Conclusions: As a nation, there is much work to be done in terms of preparedness to reach performance measure targets of 80 percent. These data can help inform response planning and the updating of communication resources such as websites, fact sheets, and other materials to reach a wide audience of disaster epidemiologists, emergency managers, and the public.

Objective: In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, household members may experience lack of support services and isolation from one another. To address this, a common recommendation is to promote preparedness through the preparation of an emergency supply kit (ESK). The goal was to characterize ESK possession on a national level to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guide next steps to better prepare for and respond to disasters and emergencies at the community level., Methods: The authors analyzed data collected through Porter Novelli's ConsumerStyles surveys in fall 2020 (n = 3625) and spring 2021 (n = 6455)., Results: ESK ownership is lacking. Overall, while most respondents believed that an ESK would help their chance of survival, only a third have one. Age, gender, education level, and region of the country were significant predictors of kit ownership in a multivariate model. In addition, there was a significant association between level of preparedness and ESK ownership., Conclusions: These data are an essential starting point in characterizing ESK ownership and can be used to help tailor public messaging, inform work with partners to increase ESK ownership, and guide future research.

Heavy rainfall, storm surges, and tornadoes are hazards associated with hurricanes that can cause property damages and loss of life. Disaster-related mortality surveillance encounters challenges, such as timely reporting of mortality data. This review demonstrates how tracking hurricane-related deaths using online media reports (eg, news media articles, press releases, social media posts) can enhance mortality surveillance during a response. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used online media reports from 2012 to 2020 to characterize hurricane-related deaths from 10 hurricanes that were declared major disasters and the flooding related to Hurricane Joaquin in the contiguous United States. Media reports showed that drowning ( n = 139), blunt force trauma ( n = 89), and carbon monoxide poisoning ( n = 58) were the primary causes of death. Online media and social media reports are not official records. However, media mortality surveillance is useful for hurricane responses to target messaging and current incident decision-making.

We conducted a community seroprevalence survey in Arizona, from September 12 to October 1, 2020, to determine the presence of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We used the seroprevalence estimate to predict SARS-CoV-2 infections in the jurisdiction by applying the adjusted seroprevalence to the county's population. The estimated community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections was 4.3 times greater (95% confidence interval = 2.2, 7.5) than the number of reported cases. Field surveys with representative sampling provide data that may help fill in gaps in traditional public health reporting. ( Am J Public Health . 2022;112(1):38-42. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306568).

Disasters can adversely affect population health, resulting in increased need for health services. Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Florida Keys (Monroe County) as a Category 4 hurricane on September 10, 2017. The hurricane caused substantial damage to 65% of homes and resulted in 40 persons injured and 17 deaths from hurricane-related causes.* During 2018, the county suicide rate increased to 34.9 per 100,000 population from the 5-year (2013-2017) average of 25.2 per 100,000 population (1). In May 2019, 20 months after the hurricane, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) conducted a modified Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) to assess the community's mental, physical, and economic health and develop public health interventions to decrease the suicide rate. A consenting adult member from 231 households was interviewed, and a weighted cluster analysis was conducted to estimate the number and percentage of households throughout the Florida Keys with a particular response, as well as the number and percentage of persons at risk for suicide. During the 20 months since Hurricane Irma, 17% of households reported a need for a mental health care provider; 37.9% of these did not receive those services. A modified CASPER was used to calculate population estimates of suicide risk in an area of high landfall for hurricanes; estimated population suicide risk was 7.3%. Respondents reported worsening of respiratory conditions (17.7%), anxiety (17.0%), and depression (11.3%). Emergency preparedness plans should consider strengthening mental health service delivery after a hurricane, particularly during the long-term recovery phase., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Cleaning and disinfection of frequently touched surfaces and frequent hand hygiene are recommended measures to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, poison center calls regarding exposures to cleaners, disinfectants, and hand sanitizers have increased as compared with prior years, indicating a need to evaluate household safety precautions. An opt-in Internet panel survey of 502 U.S. adults was conducted in May 2020. Survey items evaluated knowledge regarding use and storage of cleaners, disinfectants, and hand sanitizers; attitudes about household cleaning and disinfection; and safety precautions practiced during the prior month. We assigned a knowledge score to each respondent to quantify knowledge of safety precautions and calculated median scores by demographic characteristics and attitudes. We identified gaps in knowledge regarding safe use and storage of cleaners, disinfectants, and hand sanitizers; the overall median knowledge score was 5.17 (95% CI: 4.85-5.50; maximum 9.00). Knowledge scores were lower among younger than older age-groups and among black non-Hispanic and Hispanic respondents compared with white non-Hispanic respondents. A greater proportion of respondents expressed knowledge of safety precautions than the proportion who engaged in these precautions. Tailored communication strategies should be used to reach populations with lower knowledge of cleaning and disinfection safety. In addition, as knowledge alone did not shape individual engagement in safety precautions, health promotion campaigns may specifically emphasize the health risks of unsafe use and storage of cleaners, disinfectants, and hand sanitizers to address risk perception.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is ongoing in many communities throughout the United States. Although case-based and syndromic surveillance are critical for monitoring the pandemic, these systems rely on persons obtaining testing or reporting a COVID-19-like illness. Using serologic tests to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is an adjunctive strategy that estimates the prevalence of past infection in a population. During April 28-May 3, 2020, coinciding with the end of a statewide shelter-in-place order, CDC and the Georgia Department of Public Health conducted a serologic survey in DeKalb and Fulton counties in metropolitan Atlanta to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the population. A two-stage cluster sampling design was used to randomly select 30 census blocks in each county, with a target of seven participating households per census block. Weighted estimates were calculated to account for the probability of selection and adjusted for age group, sex, and race/ethnicity. A total of 394 households and 696 persons participated and had a serology result; 19 (2.7%) of 696 persons had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected. The estimated weighted seroprevalence across these two metropolitan Atlanta counties was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-4.5). Non-Hispanic black participants more commonly had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than did participants of other racial/ethnic groups (p<0.01). Among persons with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, 13 (weighted % = 49.9; 95% CI = 24.4-75.5) reported a COVID-19-compatible illness,* six (weighted % = 28.2; 95% CI = 11.9-53.3) sought medical care for a COVID-19-compatible illness, and five (weighted % = 15.7; 95% CI = 5.1-39.4) had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, demonstrating that many of these infections would not have been identified through case-based or syndromic surveillance. The relatively low seroprevalence estimate in this report indicates that most persons in the catchment area had not been infected with SARS-CoV-2 at the time of the survey. Continued preventive measures, including social distancing, consistent and correct use of face coverings, and hand hygiene, remain critical in controlling community spread of SARS-CoV-2., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A recent report described a sharp increase in calls to poison centers related to exposures to cleaners and disinfectants since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (1). However, data describing cleaning and disinfection practices within household settings in the United States are limited, particularly concerning those practices intended to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. To provide contextual and behavioral insight into the reported increase in poison center calls and to inform timely and relevant prevention strategies, an opt-in Internet panel survey of 502 U.S. adults was conducted in May 2020 to characterize knowledge and practices regarding household cleaning and disinfection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Knowledge gaps were identified in several areas, including safe preparation of cleaning and disinfectant solutions, use of recommended personal protective equipment when using cleaners and disinfectants, and safe storage of hand sanitizers, cleaners, and disinfectants. Thirty-nine percent of respondents reported engaging in nonrecommended high-risk practices with the intent of preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, such as washing food products with bleach, applying household cleaning or disinfectant products to bare skin, and intentionally inhaling or ingesting these products. Respondents who engaged in high-risk practices more frequently reported an adverse health effect that they believed was a result of using cleaners or disinfectants than did those who did not report engaging in these practices. Public messaging should continue to emphasize evidence-based, safe practices such as hand hygiene and recommended cleaning and disinfection of high-touch surfaces to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in household settings (2). Messaging should also emphasize avoidance of high-risk practices such as unsafe preparation of cleaning and disinfectant solutions, use of bleach on food products, application of household cleaning and disinfectant products to skin, and inhalation or ingestion of cleaners and disinfectants., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of State and Local Readiness (DSLR), Public Health Emergency Preparedness(PHEP) program funds 62 recipients to strengthen capability standards to prepare for and respond to public health emergencies. Recipients use these PHEP resources in addition to CDC's administrative and scientific guidance to support preparedness and response program planning and requirements. It is expected that public health agencies develop and maintain comprehensive emergency preparedness and response plans in preparation for disasters such as hurricanes. The 2017 historic hurricane season highlighted how emergency planning and collaborative operational execution is important for public health agencies to effectively prepare for and respond to both the immediate and long-term population health consequences of these disasters. In 2017, the southeastern United States (US) and US Caribbean territories experienced 3 Category 4 or higher Atlantic hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria) within a 5-week period. This paper highlights selected case studies that illustrate the contributions and impact of jurisdictional emergency management planning and operational capacity supported by capability standards during the 2017 hurricane season. Although the magnitude of the 2017 hurricanes required public health officials to seek additional assistance, the following case studies describe the use of public health preparedness systems and recovery resources supported by the PHEP program.

On January 19, 2020, the state of Washington reported the first U.S. laboratory-confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2 (1). As of April 19, a total of 720,630 COVID-19 cases and 37,202 associated deaths* had been reported to CDC from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories (2). CDC recommends, with precautions, the proper cleaning and disinfection of high-touch surfaces to help mitigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (3). To assess whether there might be a possible association between COVID-19 cleaning recommendations from public health agencies and the media and the number of chemical exposures reported to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), CDC and the American Association of Poison Control Centers surveillance team compared the number of exposures reported for the period January-March 2020 with the number of reports during the same 3-month period in 2018 and 2019. Fifty-five poison centers in the United States provide free, 24-hour professional advice and medical management information regarding exposures to poisons, chemicals, drugs, and medications. Call data from poison centers are uploaded in near real-time to NPDS. During January-March 2020, poison centers received 45,550 exposure calls related to cleaners (28,158) and disinfectants (17,392), representing overall increases of 20.4% and 16.4% from January-March 2019 (37,822) and January-March 2018 (39,122), respectively. Although NPDS data do not provide information showing a definite link between exposures and COVID-19 cleaning efforts, there appears to be a clear temporal association with increased use of these products., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objectives: Hurricane Harvey left a path of destruction in its wake, resulting in over 100 deaths and damaging critical infrastructure. During a disaster, public health surveillance is necessary to track emerging illnesses and injuries, identify at-risk populations, and assess the effectiveness of response efforts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Red Cross collaborate on shelter surveillance to monitor the health of the sheltered population and help guide response efforts., Methods: We analyzed data collected from 24 Red Cross shelters between August 25, 2017, and September 14, 2017. We described the aggregate morbidity data collected during Harvey compared with previous hurricanes (Gustav, Ike, and Sandy)., Results: Over one-third (38%) of reasons for visit were for health care maintenance; 33% for acute illnesses, which includes respiratory conditions, gastrointestinal symptoms, and pain; 19% for exacerbation of chronic disease; 7% for mental health; and 4% for injury. The Red Cross treated 41% of clients within the shelters; however, reporting of disposition was often missed. These results are comparable to previous hurricanes., Conclusion: The capacity of Red Cross shelter staff to address the acute health needs of shelter residents is a critical resource for local public health agencies overwhelmed by the disaster. However, there remains room for improvement because reporting remained inconsistent.

Objectives. To assess preparedness levels of communities to help public health and others plan for disasters or emergencies and tailor messaging to increase community preparedness. Methods. US Virgin Islands Department of Health conducted a Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) in June 2017, 2 hurricane response CASPERs in November 2017, and a recovery CASPER in February 2018. CASPER is a 2-stage cluster sampling method designed to provide household-based information about a community's needs in a timely, inexpensive, and representative manner. Results. Roughly the same amount of households reported having a 3-day supply of food and water before and 3 months after the hurricanes. During the response, approximately a third of households resupplied between 3 and 6 days and an additional approximately 40% between days 7 and 14. Conclusions. On the basis of the CASPERs, we were able to track whether households had an emergency preparedness kit, whether they used it during the storms (and what was missing), and if they resupplied their kit in recovery. Public Health Implications. CASPER is a promising tool to measure community preparedness to help state, local, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions plan for disasters or emergencies.

Aedes aegypti, the mosquito that carries dengue, chikungunya, and Zika viruses, is present throughout the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). To reduce mosquitoborne disease transmission, the USVI Department of Health (VIDOH) is responsible for integrated mosquito management. During January 2016-January 2018, USVI experienced its first Zika outbreak, with most cases reported during January-December 2016, as well as two Category 5 hurricanes (Irma on St. Thomas/St. John on September 6, 2017, and Maria on St. Croix on September 19, 2017). The hurricanes severely damaged mosquito protection-related building structures (e.g., screens, roofs) and infrastructure (e.g., electricity, air conditioning) and might have created an environment more conducive to mosquito breeding. VIDOH, with requested technical assistance from CDC, conducted three Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs) to provide rapid community information at the household level. The three CASPERs were conducted to inform 1) the Zika outbreak response, 2) the hurricane response, and 3) the hurricane recovery. The CASPERs assessed mosquito prevention and control-related experiences, attitudes, and practices; household and environmental conditions associated with mosquito breeding, prevention, and control; and other nonmosquito-related information to inform outbreak and disaster response planning. Approximately 40% of households were very concerned about contracting Zika virus during the Zika outbreak and hurricane responses. Environmental conditions were reported to become more favorable for mosquito breeding between the Zika outbreak and hurricane response. Between 75%-80% of the community supported mosquito-spraying in all assessments. VIDOH used these data to support real-time outbreak and hurricane response planning. Mosquito prevention and control community assessments can provide rapid, actionable information to advise both mosquito education and control and emergency response and recovery efforts. The CASPER design can be used by vector control programs to enhance routine and response operations., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objectives: Two Category 5 storms, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria, hit the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) within 13 days of each other in September 2017. These storms caused catastrophic damage across the territory, including widespread loss of power, destruction of homes, and devastation of critical infrastructure. During large scale disasters such as Hurricanes Irma and Maria, public health surveillance is an important tool to track emerging illnesses and injuries, identify at-risk populations, and assess the effectiveness of response efforts. The USVI Department of Health (DoH) partnered with shelter staff volunteers to monitor the health of the sheltered population and help guide response efforts., Methods: Shelter volunteers collect data on the American Red Cross Aggregate Morbidity Report form that tallies the number of client visits at a shelter's health services every 24 hours. Morbidity data were collected at all 5 shelters on St. Thomas and St. Croix between September and October 2017. This article describes the health surveillance data collected in response to Hurricanes Irma and Maria., Results: Following Hurricanes Irma and Maria, 1130 health-related client visits were reported, accounting for 1655 reasons for the visits (each client may have more than 1 reason for a single visit). Only 1 shelter reported data daily. Over half of visits (51.2%) were for health care management; 17.7% for acute illnesses, which include respiratory conditions, gastrointestinal symptoms, and pain; 14.6% for exacerbation of chronic disease; 9.8% for mental health; and 6.7% for injury. Shelter volunteers treated many clients within the shelters; however, reporting of the disposition (eg, referred to physician, pharmacist) was often missed (78.1%)., Conclusion: Shelter surveillance is an efficient means of quickly identifying and characterizing health issues and concerns in sheltered populations following disasters, allowing for the development of evidence-based strategies to address identified needs. When incorporated into broader surveillance strategies using multiple data sources, shelter data can enable disaster epidemiologists to paint a more comprehensive picture of community health, thereby planning and responding to health issues both within and outside of shelters. The findings from this report illustrated that managing chronic conditions presented a more notable resource demand than acute injuries and illnesses. Although there remains room for improvement because reporting was inconsistent throughout the response, the capacity of shelter staff to address the health needs of shelter residents and the ability to monitor the health needs in the sheltered population were critical resources for the USVI DoH overwhelmed by the disaster. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:38-43).

Effective communication is a critical part of managing an emergency. During an emergency, the ways in which health agencies normally communicate warnings may not reach all of the intended audience. Not all communities are the same, and households within communities are diverse. Because different communities prefer different communication methods, community leaders and emergency planners need to know their communities' preferred methods for seeking information about an emergency. This descriptive report explores findings from previous community assessments that have collected information on communication preferences, including television (TV), social media, and word-of-mouth (WoM) delivery methods. Data were analyzed from 12 Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs) conducted from 2014-2017 that included questions regarding primary and trusted communication sources. A CASPER is a rapid needs assessment designed to gather household-based information from a community. In 75.0% of the CASPERs, households reported TV as their primary source of information for specific emergency events (range = 24.0%-83.1%). Households reporting social media as their primary source of information differed widely across CASPERs (3.2%-41.8%). In five of the CASPERs, nearly one-half of households reported WoM as their primary source of information. These CASPERs were conducted in response to a specific emergency (ie, chemical spill, harmful algal bloom, hurricane, and flood). The CASPERs conducted as part of a preparedness activity had lower percentages of households reporting WoM as their primary source of information (8.3%-10.4%). The findings in this report demonstrate the need for emergency plans to include hybrid communication models, combining traditional methods with newer technologies to reach the broadest audience. Although TV was the most commonly reported preferred source of information, segments of the population relied on social media and WoM messaging. By using multiple methods for risk communication, emergency planners are more likely to reach the whole community and engage vulnerable populations that might not have access to, trust in, or understanding of traditional news sources. Multiple communication channels that include user-generated content, such as social media and WoM, can increase the timeliness of messaging and provide community members with message confirmation from sources they trust encouraging them to take protective public health actions.WolkinAF, SchnallAH, NakataNK, EllisEM. Getting the message out: social media and word-of-mouth as effective communication methods during emergencies. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(1):89-94.

Objectives: Two category 5 storms hit the US Virgin Islands (USVI) within 13 days of each other in September 2017. This caused an almost complete loss of power and devastated critical infrastructure such as the hospitals and airports METHODS: The USVI Department of Health conducted 2 response Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs) in November 2017 and a recovery CASPER in February 2018. CASPER is a 2-stage cluster sampling method designed to provide household-based information about a community's needs in a timely, inexpensive, and representative manner., Results: Almost 70% of homes were damaged or destroyed, 81.2% of homes still needed repair, and 10.4% of respondents felt their home was unsafe to live in approximately 5 months after the storms. Eighteen percent of individual respondents indicated that their mental health was "not good" for 14 or more days in the past month, a significant increase from 2016., Conclusion: The CASPERs helped characterize the status and needs of residents after the devastating hurricanes and illustrate the evolving needs of the community and the progression of the recovery process. CASPER findings were shared with response and recovery partners to promote data-driven recovery efforts, improve the efficiency of the current response and recovery efforts, and strengthen emergency preparedness in USVI. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:53-62).

Introduction: Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) is an epidemiologic technique designed to provide quick, inexpensive, accurate, and reliable household-based public health information about a community's emergency response needs. The Health Studies Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides in-field assistance and technical support to state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) health departments in conducting CASPERs during a disaster response and in non-emergency settings. Data from CASPERs conducted from 2003 through 2012 were reviewed to describe uses of CASPER, ascertain strengths of the CASPER methodology, and highlight significant findings., Methods: Through an assessment of the CDC's CASPER metadatabase, all CASPERs that involved CDC support performed in US states and territories from 2003 through 2012 were reviewed and compared descriptively for differences in geographic distribution, sampling methodology, mapping tool, assessment settings, and result and action taken by decision makers., Results: For the study period, 53 CASPERs were conducted in 13 states and one US territory. Among the 53 CASPERS, 38 (71.6%) used the traditional 2-stage cluster sampling methodology, 10 (18.8%) used a 3-stage cluster sampling, and two (3.7%) used a simple random sampling methodology. Among the CASPERs, 37 (69.9%) were conducted in response to specific natural or human-induced disasters, including 14 (37.8%) for hurricanes. The remaining 16 (30.1%) CASPERS were conducted in non-disaster settings to assess household preparedness levels or potential effects of a proposed plan or program. The most common recommendations resulting from a disaster-related CASPER were to educate the community on available resources (27; 72.9%) and provide services (18; 48.6%) such as debris removals and refills of medications. In preparedness CASPERs, the most common recommendations were to educate the community in disaster preparedness (5; 31.2%) and to revise or improve preparedness plans (5; 31.2%). Twenty-five (47.1%) CASPERs documented on the report or publications the public health action has taken based on the result or recommendations. Findings from 27 (50.9%) of the CASPERs conducted with CDC assistance were published in peer-reviewed journals or elsewhere., Conclusion: The number of CASPERs conducted with CDC assistance has increased and diversified over the past decade. The CASPERs' results and recommendations supported the public health decisions that benefitted the community. Overall, the findings suggest that the CASPER is a useful tool for collecting household-level disaster preparedness and response data and generating information to support public health action.

Disaster epidemiology (i.e., applied epidemiology in disaster settings) presents a source of reliable and actionable information for decision-makers and stakeholders in the disaster management cycle. However, epidemiological methods have yet to be routinely integrated into disaster response and fully communicated to response leaders. We present a framework consisting of rapid needs assessments, health surveillance, tracking and registries, and epidemiological investigations, including risk factor and health outcome studies and evaluation of interventions, which can be practiced throughout the cycle. Applying each method can result in actionable information for planners and decision-makers responsible for preparedness, response, and recovery. Disaster epidemiology, once integrated into the disaster management cycle, can provide the evidence base to inform and enhance response capability within the public health infrastructure.

The role of public health surveillance in disaster response continues to expand as timely, accurate information is needed to mitigate the impact of disasters. Health surveillance after a disaster involves the rapid assessment of the distribution and determinants of disaster-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries in the affected population. Public health disaster surveillance is one mechanism that can provide information to identify health problems faced by the affected population, establish priorities for decision makers, and target interventions to meet specific needs. Public health surveillance traditionally relies on a wide variety of data sources and methods. Poison center (PC) data can serve as data sources of chemical exposures and poisonings during a disaster. In the US, a system of 57 regional PCs serves the entire population. Poison centers respond to poison-related questions from the public, health care professionals, and public health agencies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses PC data during disasters for surveillance of disaster-related toxic exposures and associated illnesses to enhance situational awareness during disaster response and recovery. Poison center data can also be leveraged during a disaster by local and state public health to supplement existing surveillance systems. Augmenting traditional surveillance data (ie, emergency room visits and death records) with other data sources, such as PCs, allows for better characterization of disaster-related morbidity and mortality. Poison center data can be used during a disaster to detect outbreaks, monitor trends, track particular exposures, and characterize the epidemiology of the event. This timely and accurate information can be used to inform public health decision making during a disaster and mitigate future disaster-related morbidity and mortality.

Objectives: We describe the demographics of the decedents from the tornado outbreak in Alabama on April 27, 2011; examine the circumstances of death surrounding these fatalities; and identify measures to prevent future tornado-related fatalities., Methods: We collected information about the decedents from death certificates, disaster-related mortality surveillance, and interview data collected by American Red Cross volunteers from the decedent's families. We describe demographic characteristics, circumstances and causes of death, and sheltering behaviors before death., Results: Of the 247 fatalities, females and older adults were at highest risk for tornado-related deaths. Most deaths were directly related to the tornadoes, on scene, and trauma-related. The majority of the deceased were indoors in single-family homes. Word of mouth was the most common warning mechanism., Conclusions: This tornado event was the third deadliest in recent US history. Our findings support the need for local community shelters, enhanced messaging to inform the public of shelter locations, and encouragement of word-of-mouth warnings and personal and family preparedness planning, with a special focus on assisting vulnerable individuals in taking shelter.

Objective: To describe the injuries and illnesses treated by the American Red Cross (Red Cross) during Hurricanes Gustav and Ike disaster relief operations reported on a new Aggregate Morbidity Report Form., Methods: From August 28 to October 18, 2008, 119 Red Cross field service locations in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas addressed the healthcare needs of people affected by the hurricanes. From these locations, individual client visit data were retrospectively collated per site onto new 24-hour Aggregate Morbidity Report Forms., Results: A total of 3863 clients were treated. Of the clients, 48% were girls and women and 44% were boys and men; 61% were 19 to 64 years old. Ninety-eight percent of the visits occurred in shelters. The reasons for half of the visits were acute illness and symptoms (eg, pain) and 16% were for routine follow-up care. The majority (65%) of the 2516 visits required treatment at a field location, although 34%, or 1296 visits, required a referral, including 543 healthcare facility transfers., Conclusions: During the hurricanes, a substantial number of displaced evacuees sought care for acute and routine healthcare needs. The capacity of the Red Cross to address the immediate and ongoing health needs of sheltered clients for an extended period of time is a critical resource for local public health agencies, which are often overwhelmed during a disaster. This article highlights the important role that this humanitarian organization fills, to decrease surge to local healthcare systems and to monitor health effects following a disaster. The Aggregate Morbidity Report Form has the potential to assist greatly in this role, and thus its utility for real-time reporting should be evaluated further.

Introduction: Surveillance for health outcomes is critical for rapid responses and timely prevention of disaster-related illnesses and injuries after a disaster-causing event. The Disaster Surveillance Workgroup (DSWG) of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed a standardized, single-page, morbidity surveillance form, called the Natural Disaster Morbidity Surveillance Individual Form (Morbidity Surveillance Form), to describe the distribution of injuries and illnesses, detect outbreaks, and guide timely interventions during a disaster., Problem: Traditional data sources can be used during a disaster; however, supplemental active surveillance may be required because traditional systems often are disrupted, and many persons will seek care outside of typical acute care settings. Generally, these alternative settings lack health surveillance and reporting protocols. The need for standardized data collection was demonstrated during Hurricane Katrina, as the multiple surveillance instruments that were developed and deployed led to varied and uncoordinated data collection methods, analyses, and morbidity data reporting. Active, post-event surveillance of affected populations is critical for rapid responses to minimize and prevent morbidity and mortality, allocate resources, and target public health messaging., Methods: The CDC and the Georgia Department of Public Health (GDPH) conducted a study to evaluate a Morbidity Surveillance Form to determine its ability to capture clinical presentations. The form was completed for each patient evaluated in an emergency department (ED) during triage from 01 August, 2007 through 07 August, 2007. Data from the form were compared with the ED discharge diagnoses from electronic medical records, and kappa statistics were calculated to assess agreement., Results: Nine hundred forty-nine patients were evaluated, 41% were male and 57% were Caucasian. According to the forms, the most common reasons for seeking treatment were acute illness, other (29%); pain (12%); and gastrointestinal illness (8%). The frequency of agreement between discharge diagnoses and the form ranged from 3 to 100%. Kappa values ranged from 0.23-1.0, with nine of the 12 categories having very good or good agreement., Conclusion: With modifications to increase sensitivity for capturing certain clinical presentations, the Morbidity Surveillance Form can be a useful tool for capturing data needed to guide public health interventions during a disaster. A validated collection instrument for a post-disaster event facilitates rapid and standardized comparison and aggregation of data across multiple jurisdictions, thus, improving the coordination, timeliness, and accuracy of public health responses. The DSWG revised the Morbidity Surveillance Form based on information from this study.