OBJECTIVE: We tested the Analytical Hierarchy Process tool for its use in public health to identify potential gaps in emergency preparedness by local health departments (LHDs) in California and Hawaii during a radiological emergency. METHODS: We developed a dedicated tool called All-Hazards Preparedness Squared (AHP2) that can be used by those who are responsible for all-hazards preparedness planning and response to guide them while making strategic decisions both in preparing for and responding to a slow-moving incident while it is unfolding. The tool is an Internet-based survey that can be distributed among teams responsible for emergency preparedness and response. Twenty-eight participants from 16 LHDs in California and Hawaii responsible for coordinating preparedness and response in a radiological emergency participated in using the tool in 2013. We used the data to compare the perceived importance of different elements of preparedness among participants and identify gaps in preparedness of their organizations for meeting the challenges presented by a radiological incident. RESULTS: Clarity of information and transfer of information (to and from agency to public, state, and federal partners) were public health officials' dominant concerns while responding to an emergency. Participants also found that there were gaps in the adequacy of training and awareness of the chain of command during a radiological emergency. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study indicates that the AHP2 tool could be used for decision making in all-hazards preparedness planning and response.
OBJECTIVE: We tested the Analytical Hierarchy Process tool for its use in public health to identify potential gaps in emergency preparedness by local health departments (LHDs) in California and Hawaii during a radiological emergency. METHODS: We developed a dedicated tool called All-Hazards Preparedness Squared (AHP2) that can be used by those who are responsible for all-hazards preparedness planning and response to guide them while making strategic decisions both in preparing for and responding to a slow-moving incident while it is unfolding. The tool is an Internet-based survey that can be distributed among teams responsible for emergency preparedness and response. Twenty-eight participants from 16 LHDs in California and Hawaii responsible for coordinating preparedness and response in a radiological emergency participated in using the tool in 2013. We used the data to compare the perceived importance of different elements of preparedness among participants and identify gaps in preparedness of their organizations for meeting the challenges presented by a radiological incident. RESULTS: Clarity of information and transfer of information (to and from agency to public, state, and federal partners) were public health officials' dominant concerns while responding to an emergency. Participants also found that there were gaps in the adequacy of training and awareness of the chain of command during a radiological emergency. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study indicates that the AHP2 tool could be used for decision making in all-hazards preparedness planning and response.