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

Abstract #106895

Sandra W. Kuntz, PhD, RN, College of Nursing, Montana State University-Bozeman, Missoula Campus, 32 Campus Drive 7416, Missoula, MT 59801, 406-243-2551, skuntz@montana.edu, Jane G. Smilie, MPH, Public Health and Safety Division Administrator, Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, Cogswell Building, PO Box 202951, Helena, MT 59620, and Janet Wang, MS, Statistician, 144 Court D, University Village, Fargo, ND 58102.

PURPOSE: This study reports a rural state's progress toward protecting the public's health based on the CDC National Critical Capacity Benchmarks for Preparedness. In 2002 Montana established a vision for improving local/state emergency preparedness by developing and strengthening the public health infrastructure. A baseline assessment of local public health capacity was established in 2002 and a repeated measure evaluated infrastructure improvements in 2004. METHODS: An assessment instrument designed and based on the 2002 CDC Capacity Assessment and the Emergency Preparedness Scoring Matrix (Kuntz, Smilie, & Wang, 2003) established a continuous measure of preparedness. Local jurisdictions (counties and tribes) completed by self report the 2002 survey and a follow-up survey in 2004. An index of preparedness (the continuous measure) was developed based on 50 points with 50 indicating basic critical capacities preparedness in areas including planning and readiness; surveillance and epidemiology; laboratory capacity; communications/technology; risk communication; and education and training. RESULTS: Statewide, local jurisdictions doubled their capacity and improved to approximately 50% of basic preparedness capacity between 2002 and 2004. For survey 1 scores ranged from 3.33-33.33/50 (n=53); on survey 2 scores ranged from 15.11-44.74/50 (n=54). Small frontier counties (<10,000) and tribes showed the greatest improvement in infrastructure and preparedness. Local jurisdictions were most prepared in the area of communication/technology and least prepared in laboratory capacity. The results of this study demonstrate improvements in infrastructure that will complement public health capacity to respond to daily challenges as well as future emergencies and public health disasters.

Learning Objectives:

• Examine the relationship between public health infrastructure improvement and indicators of emergency preparedness.
• Discuss the emergency preparedness scoring matrix for measuring then and now progress in a rural state.

Keywords: Infrastructure, Research

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.

Recorded presentation