Incident Post-mortem for Response Teams during a Disaster Event - Essay Example

Incident Post-mortem for Response Teams during a Disaster Event Outline 0 To, CC, From, and 2.0 Introductory discussion 3.0 The steps to be taken in conducting the post-mortem 4.0 The key success Factors to be employed, in managing large, multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional response programs 5.0 Determining or measuring “success” in the area of incidence response 6.0 Designing drills and tests that specifically evaluate the key success factors for incidence response 7.0 Closing Statement 8.0 References Memo Veema Consultants Group Date: 28/03/2012 To: The President, Vice President, and the Minister for Planning USA CC: The Staff of the Veema Consultants Group From: The Chief Responder Programs Officer, Veema Consultants Group Subject: incident post-mortem to provide feedback to senior government officials on the performance of various response teams during a disaster event As requested, by the U.S government, the Veema Consultants Group embarked on a mission to carry out a pre-study of the adverse effects of the heavy rainfall and flooding disaster of March 2012, which took place at the Queensland, New South Whales, and the Victoria regions. The purpose of the pre-study is to provide an account of the effects of these disasters, as the information collected from there will be of main importance, during the evaluative study of the different response teams’ working to contain the situation. From the adverse effects of the disaster, and the account of the areas already addressed by the response teams, the evaluation will be done, to estimate their success, any support they may have need, and any areas that may call for more attention. From the heavy rainfall, some of these affected locations exceeded the monthly rainfall records, ever documented before – on the 2nd of March 2012. For example, the Wodonga region recorded 3.46 Inches, the equivalent of 88 mm rainfall within a few hours of rain, a record that outweighed the highest March record. The March 1926, was the highest before then, with the figures standing at 3.31 Inches / 84mm. By the 5th of March, over two thirds (70%) of the South Whales region was flooded or under the risk of flooding. During this same time, about 13,000 people were obligated to evacuate their homes or residential places, due to the threat of the rising flood waters. These included the 8,000 who had to flee from the flood threat at the Wagga Wagga area. Also, thousands of Wolf Spiders inhabiting at the Wagga Wagga region fled, seeking for higher grounds – which saw them, spin webs at higher fields and trees, to avoid the flood threat (Waters, 1993). The disaster response teams sent to the affected regions included the following: the DIK Flood Operations Center, a US based organization; the Flood Control Center, a US based flood control organization; Red Cross volunteers and the QUICK Flood Response Team, an Australian organization, that works in responding to flood disasters. The four response teams are – based and operated at different states, but offer flood response services at other countries and states, in the case disaster situations call for it. The funding for the disaster response was done by the Red Cross, which gave USD 10,000 and the U.S government, which donated USD 15,000 to enable the disaster response teams. The principal response activities assigned to the teams included the following: the provision of food and shelter, for those who are displaced; providing clean water, and offering support to those affected by the flood situation. The teams were also commissioned with the provision of beddings like blankets; clothing like coats; clean-up supplies, healthcare administration at care centers and transportation of those in need of further medical attention (Waters, 1993). From the statistics provided by the response teams, the following information was compiled: Eight thousand victims have been fully met in the areas of food and water supplies; two thousand have been served inadequately; two thousand have been served partially, sometimes missing the supplies; and the remaining one thousand have not been addressed due to their inaccessibility, or because they have moved to other areas for refuge. CHART SHOWING THE SUCCESS OF THE TEAMS IN MEETING THE FOOD AND WATER SUPPLY NEEDS OF THE 13,000 VICTIMS CHART SHOWING THE SUCCESS OF THE TEAMS IN MEETING THE SHELTER, BEDDINGS, CLOTHING AND CLEAN-UP SUPPLIES TO THE 13,000 VICTIMS From the second chart, the statistics show that 6,000 of the 13,000 victims have their shelter, beddings, clothing, and clean-up supply needs met; 4,000 have had these needs meagerly met; and 3,000 have had these needs not met. One principal cause for the ineffective address of these areas include the transportation problems encountered during the delivery of supplies to the care grounds, and the disappearance of some of the victims, in search for alternative refuge centers. The steps to be taken in conducting the post-mortem The post-mortem analysis, just like many other post-mortem programs, involved an analysis of the following: the incident response actions taken; an evaluation of the facilitation for the incident response plans, and identification of the operations carried out during the incident response. The incident response also involved an evaluation of the training and the facilities employed to avoid further disaster incidences and an evaluation of the training offered to the victims, on how to deal with future incidences. The phases to be taken are discussed below: Evaluation of poverty related Reponses The evaluation of the attention given to the poor, victims affected by the floods was done done, mainly because these are the hardest hit by such disasters – considering that, most times, they may have only, owned the property or the holdings that were washed away or submerged after the floods. The indicators here included the following information, collected from the victims: previous occupations, earning and wealth status. At this stage, an evaluation of the victims, with regard to their previous economic status was carried out, to ensure that they were among those assisted. Secondly, an evaluation was carried out to determine the efforts, and the measures employed to guarantee the safety of the victims, at the care center. The indicators here included the safety level of the housing provided; the basic needs that had been catered for, and whether they had been assisted in reclaiming the belongings, which could be reclaimed. The other area given consideration was whether the response teams had employed measures to get the affected back to track – after the assistance –which could include; training on skills they could use to foster their livelihood after leaving the rescue camp. Negotiations with the government to address the causes of the floods, as well as the resettlement of the victims, were the other aspect evaluated in this area, towards evaluating the performance of the different teams. After making enquires with governments and other authorities, the response teams had employed vulnerability reduction measures, including offering small amounts to the victims, so they could start small businesses. However, that was the much they could do, leaving the rest to the regional administration. The teams also made efforts to guarantee access to healthcare services for the victims, and schooling for the school going children (Dorge & Sharon, 1999). Evaluation of Gender issues related Reponses An evaluation of the measures taken in guaranteeing the welfare of women and children was another vital response aspect checked, mainly because addressing the core areas of women’s provision did ensure the welfare of both women and children. The core indicators checked included the priority given to the provision of food, water, beddings, and clothing to women – both pregnant and those taking care of children. Another aspect, which was evaluated regarding the response-ability of the teams, was the care employed in the areas of physical and mental experiences for the women, as they are often, get more traumatized after disasters. Another aspect, which was evaluated in this area was the efforts to empower the women among the victims, as they form core aspect in overcoming disasters (Dorge & Sharon, 1999). Evaluation of hygiene related Reponses An evaluation of the hygiene systems and measures employed at the care center was anther aspect evaluated, with regards to the reaction of the response teams. In this area, the indicators evaluated included the waste disposal mechanisms employed, the separation of the water and the waste water, and other general guidelines checked, these including the availability of hygiene facilities like soap and pit latrines. Valuation of the losses Reponses This response area was of major help to the government, as it would provide the information, necessary in adjusting the financial planning and economic growth measures to be employed at the flooded regions after the situation after a full resolution of the disaster. In evaluating this aspect, the documentation of the statistics collected in this area was evaluated. The key success Factors to be employed, in managing large, multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional response programs The major factors to be employed in managing these programs include the following: Technological skills and facilities are a priority in ensuring success here, mainly because, the varied range of problems to be dealt with will call for the application of a variety of skills, and the usage of different technological machinery. Some of the situations, which often call for the application of technical skills and the use of technological apparatus, include oxygen therapy, and blood pressure monitoring among others (Waters, 1993). An established communication system is the other requirement for the success of large-scale response programs, mainly because communication between the authorities, the governments and the teams involved must be effective. The need for an effective partnership and coordination between different governments and authorities is an important aspect in ensuring the success of such programs, mainly because the procedure of negotiating for intervention deals, lead to the death of victims, in the cases the coordination is not smooth and effective. This may include the availability of effective communication channels – both wired and wireless, coordinated transportation agreements and effective outreach preparations for disaster management. This communication should touch both the administrators and the end-users of the services. In this area, other significant areas include information sharing and the commission of baseline surveys to better understands the current levels of cooperative coordination amongst the different authorities (Walsh, 2002). Other critical success factors to be addressed include the following: developing standard operating procedures, training and exercises; technology, and governance systems. The facilitation of workshops and meetings is also of chief importance – which may also be administered through the dispatch of training materials and carrying out outreach marketing. The creation of successful training programs for the support of inter-state, statewide and regional guidance will be of chief importance. The coordination of public sector and multijurisdictional participation efforts will also be of significance. The evaluation and development of disaster preparedness is also of chief importance. Lastly, the support of medical emergency operations and state health operations will be of major importance in ensuring the success of such programs (Fortson, 1992). Determination or measure “success” in the area of incidence response Measuring the success of incidence response is best done – immediately after responding to the disaster in question, when all that happened during the disaster and during the incidence response are fresh. The success of the response can be made from evaluating the following: what went as planned, what failed, and the gaps that were witnessed during the response. From the collection of this information, the disaster management approach can be strengthened for future incidences. The incidence response is highly successful if it exposes the risk areas, identifies areas and extents of exposure; and gives full information about the vulnerability index of the victims – towards the development of manageability levels. The success of incidence preparedness can only be fully determined, in the case, the incidence that takes place, leaves the incidence response resources and preparedness unexhausted. In the case the teams’ response is exhausted, thus, there is a need to invite more help in response, then that is an indicator that the incidence preparedness was not sufficient. Also, the preparedness should be able to cover any extent of incidence, thus, accommodative of both small and vastly covering incidences, which is a great determinant of the response success levels. Design drills and tests that specifically evaluate the key success factors for response In designing incidence drills or tests, a number of areas are to be reviewed, so as to ensure that the key success factors determining the effectiveness of the incidence response are incorporated into the drill exercise. Further, an effective drill exercise should account for the four core phases of intervention. These core areas include the following: the mitigation phase aspects, which are geared at attempting to lessen the impacts of emergency incidences; the preparedness aspect, which is geared at the building of capacity, resource development and identification, which may be used or applied in the case of an emergency. The other aspects to be incorporated, towards ensuring the success of drills include, response programming, which includes activating the plan – making the emergency command system known, and practicing what is to be done after the emergency, for example, demonstrating the treatment of the victims of the incidence. The recovery phase: accounts or incorporates the actions to be taken after an emergency. The core purpose of a drill is determining the preparedness of the response team or a general institutional staff population. Drills may also be practiced at the work place, especially without the knowledge of the general employee population – so as to evaluate how they would respond to a real incidence. The areas of importance in drill and incidence preparedness tests include the following: preparedness in the areas of the implements to be used during the response, the skills needed, the tactics to be applied and lastly, the incidence management preparedness in general (Dorge & Sharon, 1999). The staff at Veema Consulting Group is available for consultation and offering further advice, as may be deemed fit. In the case you may need further, up to date information on the incidence case; you can reach any of the company’s Responder Programs Officers. References Dorge, V., and Sharon, L. (1999). Building an emergency plan: a guide for museums and other cultural institutions. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. Fortson, J. (1992). Disaster planning and recovery: a how-to-do-it manual for librarians and archivists. How-To-Do-It Manuals for Libraries, 21. Walsh, B. (2002). Salvage of water-damaged collections: salvage at a glance. National Park Service Conserve Gram, 21 (3). Waters, P. (1993). Procedures for salvage of water-damaged materials. Washington, D.C: Library of Congress. Read More