Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T07:30:37.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Group Process: A Regional Disaster Planning Methodology for Multidisciplinary Consensus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Frank L. Brown Jr.  and
Sharon L. Connelly
Frank L. Brown Jr.
Affiliation:
Office of Scientific and Clinical Affairs, NISEM, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Sharon L. Connelly
Affiliation:
Office of Scientific and Clinical Affairs, NISEM, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In accordance with the 1973 Emergency Medical Services Systems Act in the United States, one of the 15 functions to be performed by every EMS (Emergency Medical Services) system is disaster planning. The predicate of success in remediating such a macrosystem challenge as regional disaster planning requires the consensus of multidisciplinary health care and public safety human resources prior to the effective cataloging of physical resources. As the emergency physician is the medical leader of EMS system design and implementation, it is important that he explore newly developing disaster planning methodologies to facilitate consensus disaster planning.

Type
Research Article
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 3 , Issue 1: Contributions from the Third World Congress on Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Rome, Italy, May, 1983 , 1987 , pp. 68 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Brown, F.L. “The SORDD: A Municipal Resource Organization Methodology for Disaster Planning.” Disaster Medicine, in press.Google Scholar
2.Nagel, E. “Physician Leadership of Emergency Medical Services.” Disaster Medicine, 1983; 1:115.Google Scholar
3.Van de Ven, AH, Delbecq, AL. “The Nominal Group as a Research Instrument for Exploratory Health Studies.” American Journal of Public Health, 1972: 337–342.Google Scholar
4.Delbecq, AL, Van de Ven, AH, Gustafsen, DH.Group Techniques for Program Planning. Glenview IL: Scott Foresman and Company, 1975.Google Scholar
5.Siegel, G.B. “Human Resource Development for Emergency Managers.” Public Administration Review. January 1985, Volume 45, Special Issue, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Connelly, S.L. “WORK SPIRIT: Recapturing the Vitality of Work.” Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1984, 46–8.Google Scholar
7.Brown, F.L., The MANCOM System for Hospital Disaster Planning. NISEM Copyright, August, 1984.Google Scholar
8.Connelly, Sharon L. “Strategic vs. Operational Thinking”, 1983. (privately circulated)Google Scholar
9.Connelly, Sharon L. and Mitroff, Ian I. “Developing Strategic Thinking Skills to Manage Macrosystems Problems,” 1985. (privately circulated)Google Scholar
10.Mitroff, Ian I. “Megamess: Why Conventional Thinking Completely Fails in Treating Truly Big Problems,” 1985. (privately circulated)Google Scholar
11.Mitroff, Ian I. and Kilmann, Ralph H. “Is Bhopal Merely the Lull Before the Next Storm? Unless Corporate America Learns to Seriously Revise Its Ways of Thinking, the Answer is Unfortunately, “Yes.” 1985. (privately circulated)Google Scholar
12.Vaill, Peter “Process Wisdom for a New Age,” Revision, Vol. 7, No. 2, Winter, 1984/Spring, 1985, 39–49.Google Scholar
13.Vail, Peter B. “Toward a Behavioral Description of High-Performing Systems,” in McCall, M. and Lombardo, M.Leadership: Where Else Can We Go? (EDs.) Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1978, 103–27.Google Scholar