| The observers took notes, and had the opportunity to comment at the end about what seemed a stretch, and where the holes might be (not detailed, simply by topic).
By doing this inside player/outside observer 'gap analysis', glaring needs were identified so as to be reworked before the plans become final.
Lessons learned: it'd be a good idea for school student dismissals (aka school closing though the building stays open for use as kitchen/shelter/whatever) to be ordered by the Governor, as previously surmised. Individual school districts and health officials do have that power, but are reluctant to use it. The network of health officials is strong (and - separately learned - the school superintendents also have informal networks) and efforts will be made for neighboring district uniformity. Still, one district can still choose to act differently than another without the Governor's office coordinating.
In 2003, CT passed the Public Health Emergency Response Act,"strengthening certain powers and authorities of the Governor, the Commissioner of Public Health and local health directors during a public health emergency." Assuming this is invoked, this bioterror-era law does allow for increased discretion by public health and shields them from legal consequences if acting in the state's interest.
Whenever isolation or quarantine came up for discussion yesterday (and that was rarely, and in passing only), it was preceded by the word 'voluntary'. This is useful, if at all, only early on. State legal personnel were 'players'.
The advice on individual prep is being revised (still in draft), and CT is moving to an 'at least two weeks' message from no message at all. Those two words ('at least') are slated to be included.
I contributed my suggestions for more public education about these plans (e.g., student dismissals require parent preparation), and had the opportunity to indroduce Flu Wiki to the audience (I was asked to say a few words about it when I suggested - referring to the CDC's "be first, be right, be credible" - the state might be credible and even right about information, but they'd never be first. People who knew about FW then asked me to elaborate).
This tabletop concentrated on situational awareness and testing the existing plans. It was a very seriously taken exercise and clearly everyone had done their homework. An outside the state (from WA, actually) facilitator expert ran the exercise. The gap analysis generated then becomes the next step in plan revision and implementation.
From what I gather, the CDC still has to sign off on the draft plan before CT can will publish it.
The state has come a long way over the last year, even though there's a long way to go. Statewide electronic networks have yet to be implemented for electronic data exchange (surveillance), but fax and phone back-up was emphasized rather than getting overly dependent on technology. And whereas a 'graded response' for category 1 or 2 as well as 5 was designed, a 1918-style scenario was used for planning purposes, with emphasis on the severe end.
Although we're still screwed if it hits tomorrow, we are seeing signs of progress. I expect the next CT pandemic plan iteration to be an improvement on the current one, and (most importantly) this is NOT a "checklist complete, sign me off, I'm done" apprach. This is serious work to get it right. Every player was taking responsibility to implement the plan as it is, and trying to anticipate the consequences to improve it (incuding getting input from the observers). That was the basic message I took away from the exercise, and kudos to the organizers. |
