The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Preparedness and Response to a Rural Mass Casualty Incident: Workshop Summary
cially with regard to communications (e.g., lack of 9-1-1 access, cell phone service, 800 MHz two-way radio, broadband, satellite).
Workshop participants also highlighted that federal grants programs are not guided by any coherent, unified policy. Moreover, distribution of funds remains discretionary at the state level, where it subject to the whims and political vagaries of state governments. Because most of the funding is not dedicated, it must be applied for by EMS in competition with other responder agencies and security interests.
Workshop participants offered a broad range of suggestions and strategies for improving response to rural MCIs going forward, including (but not limited to):
Ensure an adequate day-to-day response capability at a minimum;
Conduct broadly inclusive planning and exercises;
Train in and consistently use the incident command system;
Identify and share best practices across services and sectors (e.g., military battlefield trauma care, private industry communications capabilities, distance education);
Develop demonstration projects to assess the capability and feasibility of using telemedicine technology as a potential means to improve emergency medicine services in rural communities;
Establish formal mutual aid agreements and cross-jurisdictional coordination;
Strengthen the standing of EMS in the federal government and ensure coordinated and dedicated EMS funding;
Develop realistic regionalization strategies with local input;
Develop strategic partnerships (public/private/nonprofit) to achieve goals; and
Leverage existing federal programs and grants to bring enhanced communications (including Next Generation 9-1-1, broadband, and telemedicine) to rural areas.
Relationships were a thematic hallmarks of participants’ discussion over the course of the workshop. Filtering its way into multiple discussions were the importance of individual and federal leadership, and mechanisms to build trust among local, state, and regional coalition partners that can survive transitions in that leadership. Alluding to participants’ discussion during the panel on rural health systems “regionalization is not centralization,” several participants concluded that through attitudes of inclusion, in which notions of a zero-sum power structure have little or no place, improvements in rural preparedness for and response to mass casualty incidents from all causes can steadily achieve the goal of mitigating and better treating injuries, and saving more lives.