Burns Penelope L, FitzGerald Gerard J, Hu Wendy C, Aitken Peter, Douglas Kirsty A
Australian National University Medical School - Academic Unit of General Practice, Woden, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Western Sydney University School of Medicine - Penrith South DC, New South Wales, Australia.
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2022 Feb;37(1):124-131. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X21001230. Epub 2021 Dec 3.
General Practitioners (GPs) are inevitably involved when disaster strikes their communities. Evidence of health care needs in disasters increasingly suggests benefits from greater involvement of GPs, and recent research has clarified key roles. Despite this, GPs continue to be disconnected from disaster health management (DHM) in most countries.
The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of disaster management professionals in two countries, across a range of all-hazard disasters, regarding the roles and contributions of GPs to DHM, and to identify barriers to, and benefits of, more active engagement of GPs in disaster health care systems.
A qualitative research methodology using semi-structured interviews was conducted with a purposive sample of Disaster Managers (DMs) to explore their perspectives arising from experiences and observations of GPs during disasters from 2009 through 2016 in Australia or New Zealand. These involved all-hazard disasters including natural, man-made, and pandemic disasters. Responses were analyzed using thematic analysis.
These findings document support from DM participants for greater integration of GPs into DHM with New Zealand DMs reporting GPs as already a valuable integrated contributor. In contrast, Australian DMs reported barriers to inclusion that needed to be addressed before sustained integration could occur. The two most strongly expressed barriers were universally expressed by Australian DMs: (1) limited understanding of the work GPs undertake, restricting DMs' ability to facilitate GP integration; and (2) DMs' difficulty engaging with GPs as a single group. Other considerations included GPs' limited DHM knowledge, limited preparedness, and their heightened vulnerability.Strategies identified to facilitate greater integration of GPs into DHM where it is lacking, such as Australia, included enhanced communication, awareness, and understanding between GPs and DMs.
Experience from New Zealand shows systematic, sustained integration of GPs into DHM systems is achievable and valuable. Findings suggest key factors are collaboration between DMs and GPs at local, state, and national levels of DHM in planning and preparedness for the next disaster. A resilient health care system that maximizes capacity of all available local health resources in disasters and sustains them into the recovery should include General Practice.
灾难降临社区时,全科医生(GP)不可避免地会参与其中。灾害中医疗保健需求的证据越来越表明,全科医生更多地参与会带来益处,并且最近的研究已经阐明了关键作用。尽管如此,在大多数国家,全科医生仍与灾难健康管理(DHM)脱节。
本研究的目的是探讨两个国家的灾难管理专业人员在一系列全灾种灾害中对全科医生在灾难健康管理中的作用和贡献的看法,并确定全科医生更积极参与灾难医疗保健系统的障碍和益处。
采用半结构化访谈的定性研究方法,对灾难管理人员(DM)进行有目的抽样,以探讨他们在2009年至2016年期间在澳大利亚或新西兰经历灾难时对全科医生的经验和观察所产生的看法。这些灾害包括全灾种灾害,包括自然灾害、人为灾害和大流行灾害。使用主题分析法对回复进行分析。
这些发现记录了灾难管理人员参与者支持将全科医生更好地融入灾难健康管理,新西兰的灾难管理人员报告称全科医生已经是有价值的综合贡献者。相比之下,澳大利亚的灾难管理人员报告了在实现持续融合之前需要解决的纳入障碍。澳大利亚灾难管理人员普遍表达的两个最强烈的障碍是:(1)对全科医生所从事工作的理解有限,限制了灾难管理人员促进全科医生融入的能力;(2)灾难管理人员难以将全科医生作为一个整体进行接触。其他考虑因素包括全科医生有限的灾难健康管理知识、有限的准备情况以及他们更高的脆弱性。在缺乏这种融合的地方,如澳大利亚,为促进全科医生更好地融入灾难健康管理而确定的策略包括加强全科医生与灾难管理人员之间的沟通、认识和理解。
新西兰的经验表明,将全科医生系统、持续地融入灾难健康管理系统是可以实现且有价值的。研究结果表明,关键因素是灾难管理人员和全科医生在地方、州和国家各级灾难健康管理的规划和准备中进行合作。一个有复原力的医疗保健系统,应最大限度地发挥灾难中所有可用当地卫生资源的能力,并在恢复过程中维持这些资源,应包括全科医疗。