Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #109449

Meredith M. Gaskins, MS, School of Public Health, Drexel University, 245 N. 15th St., MS 660, Philadelphia, PA 19102, 215-340-8479, mmgaskins@co.bucks.pa.us, Peter D. Rumm, MD, MPH, Community Health and Prevention, Drexel University School of Public Health, Director, Center for Public Health Readiness and Communication, 1505 Race St., Philidelphia, PA 19102, Curtis E. Cummings, MD, MPH, Co-Director, Center for Public Health Readiness and Communication, Drexel University School of Public Health, Mail Stop 660, 245 North 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102-1192, and Xiaohua Hu, PhD, College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, Rush Building 10-306, Philadelphia, PA 19102.

Objectives: To review a number of terrorism assessments of a local, state or federal nature that were done after a major evaluation known as the Bioterrorism Preparedness Accountability Indicators Project (BTAIP, 2002), to gauge progress at these levels for terrorism preparedness and to potentially shape ongoing or new assessments of preparedness.

Methods: A literature review was conducted using several different search methods, including standard medical search engines (i.e., PubMed), internet search engines (i.e., Google), as well as by personally contacting leading experts in the preparedness field. In addition an advanced search for additional surveys and assessments using a semantic-based search approach was conducted. The surveys' major findings and methods were analyzed for content.

Results: The assessments/evaluations have been done using a variety of methods, by a variety of agencies and professionals, and about a variety of topics. There are however some constant results, such as a continuing shortage of qualified public health professionals, trained medical work force, levels of training for many audiences, and preparedness levels in hospitals. The most repeated improvements include those in the areas of: 1) laboratory preparedness; 2) surveillance tools; and 3) communication, informatics databases, and information portals.

Conclusions: There is a continued need to conduct assessments and evaluations that link local, state, and national preparedness efforts as well as reuse of existing assessment tools, to create a comparison over time.

Learning Objectives: