预防大混乱:大学环境下的大流行准备计划和成功的传染病爆发管理。

L. Grundy, O. Yonge, R. Richards, T. Bailey, T. Marrie, Les Brinkworth, B. Herman
{"title":"预防大混乱:大学环境下的大流行准备计划和成功的传染病爆发管理。","authors":"L. Grundy, O. Yonge, R. Richards, T. Bailey, T. Marrie, Les Brinkworth, B. Herman","doi":"10.7939/R3VH5CQ6J","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The prospect of a possible influenza pandemic (1) spurred the senior administration at the University of Alberta to commission a Public Health Response Committee [PHRC] (2) to develop a Public Health Response Strategy (Strategy) (3). The PHRC began work in January 2006 to develop a decision-making model, business continuity plan, human resources plan and communications plan that would be operationalized in the event the University faced a major public health event. This article provides an overview of the ongoing development of the Strategy. As well, it describes how a recent outbreak of norovirus in a large student residence enabled the emergency response team to apply and assess the Strategy during an actual public health situation. Key lessons learned relate to the importance of raising awareness and understanding of emergency preparedness and response on campus, crisis communications practices, and adequate provision of resources related to emergency preparedness and response. Background, Development of Ethical Principles, and Survey of Knowledge and Attitudes The PHRC is a multi-disciplinary team with 27 representatives composed of students, faculty and staff from key areas of the University, and from external agencies, including the regional health authority for the region (Capital Health) and the Alberta provincial government. In carrying out its mandate, the Committee's priorities include an emphasis on planning for and ensuring, insofar as is possible, the health, safety and security of staff and students, maintaining the essential services of the University, and communicating effectively with stakeholders and partners, including all levels of government. Governments and institutions, including the University, will be called on to make difficult decisions in the event of a serious public health event such as a flu pandemic. Thus, a key component of the Strategy has been to identify a set of ethical principles to facilitate ethical decision-making in the best interests of the University community, as well as the community at large. The following \"NOFLU\" ethical principles were drafted after a review of the literature regarding ethics and public health. (4) They have been adopted by the PHRC in its approach to developing the Strategy. NOFLU will guide decision-making in the event of a public health emergency: 1. Need to protect: While there is a need or duty to take steps to protect the community generally (see utilitarianism below), there is also the need or duty to protect those who incur risk for the benefit of the community, to protect vulnerable populations within the community, and to uphold or protect individual rights and freedoms. 2. Openness: Decisions should be made in an open and transparent manner, with clear lines of accountability. Decision-makers should provide information on how decisions are made and on what basis they are made as much as is reasonably possible. The University community (and, where appropriate, the larger community) should be kept informed, and decision-makers should be open to revisiting and revising policies as new information arises. 3. Fairness: The principle of fairness should inform both the process of decision-making and its substantive and procedural outcomes. Decision-making and priority setting should be fair processes and include consultation with stakeholders where appropriate. Outcomes should reflect a fair distribution of the benefits and costs. Procedural fairness carries an obligation to provide protections to those whose rights or liberties are restricted in an attempt to protect the well-being of the community. 4. Least-Restrictive/Proportionate: In the process of decision-making, if there is more than one option that would achieve a particular aim, the least restrictive alternative should be chosen. This does not mean that decision-makers must choose the least restrictive means if it may lack effectiveness compared to other options in a given situation. …","PeriodicalId":87182,"journal":{"name":"Health law review","volume":"52 3 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preventing Pandemonium: Pandemic preparedness planning and successful communicable disease outbreak management in a university setting.\",\"authors\":\"L. Grundy, O. Yonge, R. Richards, T. Bailey, T. Marrie, Les Brinkworth, B. Herman\",\"doi\":\"10.7939/R3VH5CQ6J\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The prospect of a possible influenza pandemic (1) spurred the senior administration at the University of Alberta to commission a Public Health Response Committee [PHRC] (2) to develop a Public Health Response Strategy (Strategy) (3). The PHRC began work in January 2006 to develop a decision-making model, business continuity plan, human resources plan and communications plan that would be operationalized in the event the University faced a major public health event. This article provides an overview of the ongoing development of the Strategy. As well, it describes how a recent outbreak of norovirus in a large student residence enabled the emergency response team to apply and assess the Strategy during an actual public health situation. Key lessons learned relate to the importance of raising awareness and understanding of emergency preparedness and response on campus, crisis communications practices, and adequate provision of resources related to emergency preparedness and response. Background, Development of Ethical Principles, and Survey of Knowledge and Attitudes The PHRC is a multi-disciplinary team with 27 representatives composed of students, faculty and staff from key areas of the University, and from external agencies, including the regional health authority for the region (Capital Health) and the Alberta provincial government. In carrying out its mandate, the Committee's priorities include an emphasis on planning for and ensuring, insofar as is possible, the health, safety and security of staff and students, maintaining the essential services of the University, and communicating effectively with stakeholders and partners, including all levels of government. Governments and institutions, including the University, will be called on to make difficult decisions in the event of a serious public health event such as a flu pandemic. Thus, a key component of the Strategy has been to identify a set of ethical principles to facilitate ethical decision-making in the best interests of the University community, as well as the community at large. The following \\\"NOFLU\\\" ethical principles were drafted after a review of the literature regarding ethics and public health. (4) They have been adopted by the PHRC in its approach to developing the Strategy. NOFLU will guide decision-making in the event of a public health emergency: 1. Need to protect: While there is a need or duty to take steps to protect the community generally (see utilitarianism below), there is also the need or duty to protect those who incur risk for the benefit of the community, to protect vulnerable populations within the community, and to uphold or protect individual rights and freedoms. 2. Openness: Decisions should be made in an open and transparent manner, with clear lines of accountability. Decision-makers should provide information on how decisions are made and on what basis they are made as much as is reasonably possible. The University community (and, where appropriate, the larger community) should be kept informed, and decision-makers should be open to revisiting and revising policies as new information arises. 3. Fairness: The principle of fairness should inform both the process of decision-making and its substantive and procedural outcomes. Decision-making and priority setting should be fair processes and include consultation with stakeholders where appropriate. Outcomes should reflect a fair distribution of the benefits and costs. Procedural fairness carries an obligation to provide protections to those whose rights or liberties are restricted in an attempt to protect the well-being of the community. 4. Least-Restrictive/Proportionate: In the process of decision-making, if there is more than one option that would achieve a particular aim, the least restrictive alternative should be chosen. This does not mean that decision-makers must choose the least restrictive means if it may lack effectiveness compared to other options in a given situation. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":87182,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health law review\",\"volume\":\"52 3 1\",\"pages\":\"17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7939/R3VH5CQ6J\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7939/R3VH5CQ6J","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

可能的流感大流行(1)的前景促使阿尔伯塔大学的高级管理部门委托公共卫生应对委员会(2)制定公共卫生应对战略(3)。PHRC于2006年1月开始制定决策模型、业务连续性计划、人力资源计划和通信计划,以便在大学面临重大公共卫生事件时实施。本文概述了该战略正在进行的发展。此外,它还描述了最近在一个大型学生宿舍爆发的诺如病毒如何使应急小组能够在实际的公共卫生情况下应用和评估该战略。吸取的主要经验教训涉及提高对校园应急准备和反应的认识和理解的重要性、危机沟通做法以及充分提供与应急准备和反应有关的资源。PHRC是一个多学科团队,由27名代表组成,包括来自大学关键领域的学生、教职员工,以及来自外部机构的代表,包括该地区的地区卫生当局(首都卫生)和阿尔伯塔省政府。在执行其任务时,委员会的优先事项包括强调规划和尽可能确保工作人员和学生的健康、安全和保障,维持大学的基本服务,并与利益攸关方和合作伙伴(包括各级政府)进行有效沟通。在发生流感大流行等严重公共卫生事件时,将要求各国政府和机构,包括联合国大学,作出艰难的决定。因此,该策略的一个重要组成部分是确定一套道德原则,以促进合乎道德的决策,以达到大学社区乃至整个社会的最大利益。以下“非流感”伦理原则是在审查了有关伦理和公共卫生的文献后起草的。(4) PHRC在制定《策略》时采纳了这些建议。在发生突发公共卫生事件时,NOFLU将指导决策:保护的需要:虽然有必要或有责任采取措施保护整个社区(见下面的功利主义),但也有必要或有责任保护那些为了社区的利益而承担风险的人,保护社区内的弱势群体,维护或保护个人权利和自由。2. 公开:决策应以公开和透明的方式进行,并有明确的问责制。决策者应尽可能提供有关如何作出决定以及根据什么作出决定的信息。大学社区(适当时,更大的社区)应该随时了解情况,决策者应该随着新信息的出现而重新审视和修订政策。3.公平:公平原则既应影响决策过程,也应影响决策的实质性和程序性结果。决策和确定优先事项应是公平的过程,并酌情与利益攸关方协商。结果应反映收益和成本的公平分配。程序公平有义务为那些权利或自由受到限制的人提供保护,以保护社会的福祉。4. 最小限制/比例:在决策过程中,如果有多个选项可以实现特定目标,则应选择限制最少的选项。这并不意味着决策者必须选择限制最少的手段,如果它在特定情况下与其他选择相比可能缺乏有效性。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Preventing Pandemonium: Pandemic preparedness planning and successful communicable disease outbreak management in a university setting.
The prospect of a possible influenza pandemic (1) spurred the senior administration at the University of Alberta to commission a Public Health Response Committee [PHRC] (2) to develop a Public Health Response Strategy (Strategy) (3). The PHRC began work in January 2006 to develop a decision-making model, business continuity plan, human resources plan and communications plan that would be operationalized in the event the University faced a major public health event. This article provides an overview of the ongoing development of the Strategy. As well, it describes how a recent outbreak of norovirus in a large student residence enabled the emergency response team to apply and assess the Strategy during an actual public health situation. Key lessons learned relate to the importance of raising awareness and understanding of emergency preparedness and response on campus, crisis communications practices, and adequate provision of resources related to emergency preparedness and response. Background, Development of Ethical Principles, and Survey of Knowledge and Attitudes The PHRC is a multi-disciplinary team with 27 representatives composed of students, faculty and staff from key areas of the University, and from external agencies, including the regional health authority for the region (Capital Health) and the Alberta provincial government. In carrying out its mandate, the Committee's priorities include an emphasis on planning for and ensuring, insofar as is possible, the health, safety and security of staff and students, maintaining the essential services of the University, and communicating effectively with stakeholders and partners, including all levels of government. Governments and institutions, including the University, will be called on to make difficult decisions in the event of a serious public health event such as a flu pandemic. Thus, a key component of the Strategy has been to identify a set of ethical principles to facilitate ethical decision-making in the best interests of the University community, as well as the community at large. The following "NOFLU" ethical principles were drafted after a review of the literature regarding ethics and public health. (4) They have been adopted by the PHRC in its approach to developing the Strategy. NOFLU will guide decision-making in the event of a public health emergency: 1. Need to protect: While there is a need or duty to take steps to protect the community generally (see utilitarianism below), there is also the need or duty to protect those who incur risk for the benefit of the community, to protect vulnerable populations within the community, and to uphold or protect individual rights and freedoms. 2. Openness: Decisions should be made in an open and transparent manner, with clear lines of accountability. Decision-makers should provide information on how decisions are made and on what basis they are made as much as is reasonably possible. The University community (and, where appropriate, the larger community) should be kept informed, and decision-makers should be open to revisiting and revising policies as new information arises. 3. Fairness: The principle of fairness should inform both the process of decision-making and its substantive and procedural outcomes. Decision-making and priority setting should be fair processes and include consultation with stakeholders where appropriate. Outcomes should reflect a fair distribution of the benefits and costs. Procedural fairness carries an obligation to provide protections to those whose rights or liberties are restricted in an attempt to protect the well-being of the community. 4. Least-Restrictive/Proportionate: In the process of decision-making, if there is more than one option that would achieve a particular aim, the least restrictive alternative should be chosen. This does not mean that decision-makers must choose the least restrictive means if it may lack effectiveness compared to other options in a given situation. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Discussion on Several Problems Worth Discussing in the Work of Health Examination Media Representations of Genetic Discoveries: Hype in the Headlines? Nutrigenomics, Mass Media and Commercialization Pressures Media Portrayal of Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research Public Trust and Regulatory Governance as represented through the Media
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1