BACKGROUND: Effective management of modern public health emergencies requires the coordinated efforts of multiple agencies representing various disciplines. Organizational culture differences between public health (PH) and emergency management (EM) entities may hinder inter-agency collaboration. We examine how PH and EM differ in their approach to PH law and how such differences affect their collaboration towards PH preparedness. METHODS: We conducted 144 semi-structured interviews with local and state PH and EM officials between April 2008 and November 2009. Thematic qualitative analysis in ATLAS.ti was used to extract characteristics of each agency's approach to PH legal preparedness. RESULTS: Two conflicting approaches to the law emerge. The PH approach is characterized by perceived uncertainty regarding legal authority over preparedness planning tasks; expectation for guidance on interpretation of existing laws; and concern about individual and organizational liability. The EM approach reveals perception of broad legal authority; flexible interpretation of existing laws; and ethical concerns over infringement of individual freedoms and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct interpretations of preparedness law impede effective collaboration for PH preparedness. Clarification of legal authority mandates, designation within laws of scope of preparedness activities and guidance on interpretation of current federal and state laws are needed.
BACKGROUND: Effective management of modern public health emergencies requires the coordinated efforts of multiple agencies representing various disciplines. Organizational culture differences between public health (PH) and emergency management (EM) entities may hinder inter-agency collaboration. We examine how PH and EM differ in their approach to PH law and how such differences affect their collaboration towards PH preparedness. METHODS: We conducted 144 semi-structured interviews with local and state PH and EM officials between April 2008 and November 2009. Thematic qualitative analysis in ATLAS.ti was used to extract characteristics of each agency's approach to PH legal preparedness. RESULTS: Two conflicting approaches to the law emerge. The PH approach is characterized by perceived uncertainty regarding legal authority over preparedness planning tasks; expectation for guidance on interpretation of existing laws; and concern about individual and organizational liability. The EM approach reveals perception of broad legal authority; flexible interpretation of existing laws; and ethical concerns over infringement of individual freedoms and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct interpretations of preparedness law impede effective collaboration for PH preparedness. Clarification of legal authority mandates, designation within laws of scope of preparedness activities and guidance on interpretation of current federal and state laws are needed.
Authors: Leslie M Beitsch; Samata Kodolikar; Tim Stephens; Daniel Shodell; Art Clawson; Nir Menachemi; Robert G Brooks Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2006 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Clifford M Rees; Daniel O'Brien; Peter A Briss; Joan Miles; Poki Namkung; Patrick M Libbey Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Cheryl H Bullard; Rick D Hogan; Matthew S Penn; Janet Ferris; John Cleland; Daniel Stier; Ronald M Davis; Susan Allan; Leticia Van de Putte; Virginia Caine; Richard E Besser; Steven Gravely Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Lisa C McCormick; Valerie A Yeager; Andrew C Rucks; Peter M Ginter; Sam Hansen; Ziad N Kazzi; Nir Menachemi Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Lainie Rutkow; Jon S Vernick; Natalie L Semon; Artensie Flowers; Nicole A Errett; Jonathan M Links Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2014 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Asha V Devereaux; Pritish K Tosh; John L Hick; Dan Hanfling; James Geiling; Mary Jane Reed; Timothy M Uyeki; Umair A Shah; Daniel B Fagbuyi; Peter Skippen; Jeffrey R Dichter; Niranjan Kissoon; Michael D Christian; Jeffrey S Upperman Journal: Chest Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 9.410