Emergency Response and Management

Lynell M. Dupepe; John C. Donaho; Gordon Roble

doi:10.1201/9781315152189-17

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Weichbrod RH, Thompson GAH, Norton JN, editors. Management of Animal Care and Use Programs in Research, Education, and Testing. 2nd edition. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2018. doi: 10.1201/9781315152189-17

Cover of Management of Animal Care and Use Programs in Research, Education, and Testing

Management of Animal Care and Use Programs in Research, Education, and Testing. 2nd edition.

Show details

Contents

< Prev Next >

Chapter 17 Emergency Response and Management

Lynell M. Dupepe, John C. Donaho, and Gordon Roble.

Introduction

Emergency response and business continuity (BC) planning is an essential component of the research organization’s program. A well-developed plan ensures the humane care and treatment of laboratory animals in a crisis situation. Animal facility management must contemplate the following questions: If our facility is faced with a crisis”“natural or man-made”“are we prepared? Are the local authorities aware of specialized facility needs? Does our response plan integrate with that of city, county, and state emergency plans? Are our essential personnel equipped to respond? Can we recover after the disaster? Taking responsibility for preparedness and response is vital to reduce potential damage and hasten recovery from any adverse event, large or small. Following a disaster, business resumption is the priority of the institution. The goal of comprehensive crisis planning is to create resiliency within an organization and increase the chance of a successful outcome when a disaster or emergency occurs.

Although there are distinctions between crisis, emergency, and disaster, for the purposes of this chapter, planning for any of the above comes under the heading crisis. This chapter uses the definition of crisis as provided by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) (2016). Out of many, varied definitions, it most succinctly encompasses what the authors felt a crisis management plan should consider. The CCAC defines a crisis as “any unplanned event which triggers a real, perceived, or possible threat to the health and safety of animals or personnel or to the Institution’s credibility” (Canadian Council on Animal Care 2016).

To delineate differences between an emergency and a disaster, it is helpful to consider the scope of response required for the event. A disaster is considered a calamitous event that requires a response beyond that available locally, such as state or federal assistance (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies). An emergency can be resolved with local resources. For example, an emergency is when a water supply line bursts, flooding one or more animal rooms, but cleanup and repair take place in a reasonably short period of time. This situation requires an immediate response, but it usually does not result in business disruption or relocation of staff. While a broken water line might be an emergent situation handled at the room or building level, a broken dam upstream from a town would be a disaster, as flood waters take out utilities, businesses, and homes. Because the scope of a disaster can be sizable, planning for crisis management and BC becomes more important.

Many administrators lump crisis planning and BC planning into one document. Although this is a practical solution, a distinction should be made between these two entities. Mortell and Nicholls (2013) describe crisis preparedness as the actions needed “to mitigate the impact of threats that can reasonably be predicted.” Predicting the impact of these threats comes from appropriate crisis preparedness, as described later in this chapter. They further define BC planning as “the actions taken by an organization to ensure that critical business functions will be sustained in the event of a disaster.” It may be easiest to consider the crisis response and recovery plan as actions taken at the time of the adverse event, as compared with the longer-term goals of a BC plan. BC planning expands on the crisis management recovery phase goals to ensure that business continues through the crisis and onward with minimal interruption. BC planning is discussed in further detail at the end of this chapter. Regardless of whether an institute specifically delineates these terms, the planning for both has significant overlap, and appropriately created plans will account for all details discussed in Chapter 18.

As described in the New England Journal of Medicine, the global biomedical research and development (R&D) expenditures in 2012 alone were $268.4 billion (Chakma et al. 2014). Emergency and BC planning will mitigate the escalating costs of recovery. Laboratory animal professionals have a moral and fiscal responsibility to protect the staff, animals, and research efforts at their respective organizations. Directors, veterinarians, facility managers, supervisors, and researchers are vital in creating a culture of preparedness within the animal facility. The goal of this chapter is to assist managers, veterinarians, supervisors, or other personnel in mitigating these crises with a well-thought-out plan and a well-prepared team. This chapter examines the concepts of risk assessment, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, and BC. A crisis is not the time to develop a plan; it is the time to execute a carefully constructed and rehearsed plan. It is not a question of if; it is a matter of when! When disaster comes knocking, will the institution be ready?

Crisis Management

Crisis management is a community affair, and for it to work well, private, local, state, and federal entities must execute their respective emergency management responsibilities. It is important to understand the organization of crisis response on a local, state, and federal level to integrate institutional plans with them effectively. Globally, emergency response and management systems are not standardized and differ widely from country to country. In the United States, for instance, emergency response is a state and local government responsibility and the federal government acts in a supportive manner, while the contrary is true in the United Kingdom. The European Union provides preplanning and disaster coordination among the member nations. While some Latin American and Caribbean countries rely almost exclusively on civil defense, the vast majority have adopted a decentralized approach, increasing the role of local governments. Although organizationally dissimilar, a common thread in all global systems is the need for comprehensive strategies that include prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and provisions for reconstruction and rehabilitation activities (Heath 1999).

Crisis Response Coordination

Customarily, entities such as institutional emergency response groups act as the liaison between the local agencies and the organization. The emergency response department of an institution may utilize an incident command model, as discussed later in this chapter, allowing communication between institutional departments and leadership, and local command centers. Depending on the level of the crisis, local and state plans may be enacted in tandem with the organizational or facility plan. The institutional plans should be shared with local police, fire, and other relevant municipal departments so that if the need arises, they may assist with recovery efforts (National Research Council 2011). For example, in the event of a mandatory evacuation of a city, consider the possibility of a municipal evacuation protocol where traffic flow of all interstate highways reverts to outbound traffic only. How will contraflow traffic patterns impact essential personnel trying to report to work or evacuation of an animal facility?

State governments are responsible for protecting communities and citizens within each state and carrying out statewide crisis management activities. They are also the liaison between resources available at the federal level and local level. Both state and local governments develop emergency plans for hazards that threaten their communities. These plans generally follow the format recommended by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and include mitigation activities, preparedness plans, response to emergencies, and recovery operations (FEMA 1996).

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA are federal agencies and play significant roles in disaster response. The DHS was created in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, DC, to protect U.S. territories from terrorist attacks and man-made and natural disasters. FEMA was created in 1979 and tasked with the mission to “lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters with a vision of ”A Nation Prepared’” (FEMA 2015), and is the principal federal agency responsible for responding to disasters. FEMA was placed under the umbrella of the DHS in 2003 and given the added responsibility to ensure that first responders are trained and equipped to deal with weapons of mass destruction. In 2006, the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act was signed into law, significantly reorganizing FEMA. Under this act, FEMA was given substantial new authority to remedy gaps that became apparent in the response to Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, thus giving the agency a more robust preparedness mission. In addition to emergency response and recovery activities, FEMA provides training programs and information on up-to-date mitigation measures, reviews and coordinates state emergency plans, and provides subsidies to state and local offices of emergency management for emergency management programs.

Animal Facility Crisis Response Planning

Regulatory Compliance

Common sense suggests that all animal facilities need an emergency plan. However, all institutions that maintain a written Animal Welfare Assurance describing compliance with the Public Health Service (PHS) policy (National Institutes of Health 2002) or AAALAC International accreditation, both in the United States and abroad, are required to develop and maintain current, updated emergency response plans (National Research Council 2011). The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Guide) first introduced the importance of emergency planning in the seventh edition (1996) and expanded this requirement in the eighth edition (2011) as a mandatory recommendation. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) guidance for developing an emergency plan can be found on the OLAW website (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/olaw.htm). These new standards are in direct response to the increase in worldwide catastrophes.

Developing the Plan

There are four phases to consider while constructing a crisis plan:

Risk assessment and mitigation
Preparedness
Response
Recovery

The first and most important is risk assessment and mitigation. Risk assessment is the foundation for everything else that follows because it identifies areas of weakness. Risk mitigation eliminates or reduces those areas of weakness or risks. The preparedness phase encompasses the planning and action to ensure human and animal safety and the capability of facilities. This is accomplished by putting people and materials in place to provide essential services and protections required during times of crisis. The response portion of the plan determines how quickly damage can be assessed, repaired, or replaced to allow recovery. Response is the phase during and immediately after a crisis. The response portion of the plan is critical but short-lived compared with the recovery phase. Planning for recovery and subsequent BC, the fourth phase, is often an afterthought. Both should have been considered and developed in the risk assessment and mitigation stage. Having a BC plan in place can ensure a much faster return to normal business operations. Any delay in recovery can spell failure in the long term (Figure 17.1).

Figure 17.1

Emergency management circle of life.

Risk Assessment

Risk assessment considers the spectrum of potential internal and external human and naturally occurring impacts to a facility. It is a process where hazards and hazard effects are identified, the risks and vulnerabilities associated with those hazards are evaluated and scored, and mitigations to reduce the risks are sought. Hazards are anything that can cause harm to animals, people, or business operations. Hazards include obvious things like wind, fire, and flood. Other hazards might include disruption of normal animal care activities as a result of a pandemic or security breaches, such as break-ins or data loss. The list can be exhaustive, but identifying hazards is of utmost importance for the mitigation and preparedness phases (Figure 17.2).

Figure 17.2

Threat types.

Planning considers the results of a hazard, not necessarily the specific hazard. A fire or storm in a nearby neighborhood resulting in widespread power outage or evacuations due to hazardous fumes could disrupt operations in the animal facility. The real hazard in this case is loss of power or forced evacuation of the area, not the fire or storm. By considering the result and not the cause, the number of scenarios can be simplified because the response is the same whether the loss of power was caused by fire or flood. The goal is to manage the impact from the loss of power.

Understanding the differences between hazard, risk, and vulnerability is critical when building a plan. In simple terms, hazards are something out of your control. Hazards, such as an earthquake or tsunami, cannot be stopped, but we can plan for the results of those events. Facility management needs to know and understand what threats exist for their location in order to assign risk. Risk, as opposed to hazards, can be managed. Risk is assigning a value or probability of a hazard happening at a specific location, along with the calculated damage that the hazard may cause (Lundberg and Willis 2015). Another way of looking at this is how vulnerable or how much exposure a facility has to a specific hazard. Vulnerability is a measure of physical, social, economic, and environmental factors that increase susceptibility to the impact of a hazard (Palliyaguru et al. 2014). Vulnerability is often directly tied to geography. Facilities located along rivers or coastlines might have a higher vulnerability to flooding and hurricanes. Exposure is another component of risk, and refers to that which is affected by natural disasters, such as people and property. Risk is also a factor of the resilience of the facility in a time of crisis. Resilience is the ability of people to plan for, respond to, and recover from a crisis. As discussed later in the chapter, developing a crisis plan, drilling the plan, and having resources available for recovery enhances organizational resilience. The publication by Arms and Van Zante (2010) speaks to the importance of crisis planning and organizational resilience. These factors were fundamental in their successful and timely evacuation of an animal facility during the threat of California wildfires.

The Venn diagram in Figure 17.3 shows how hazards, vulnerability and exposure, and resilience interact. The intersection where all three factors overlap is the area of highest risk. For each hazard, the level of vulnerability and resilience will vary, increasing or decreasing the relative amount of risk for that hazard. Wildfire hazard provides an example for facilities located within certain arid regions. In this case, well-maintained perimeter fire breaks would minimize the hazard by decreasing the amount of dry fuel easily ignited. Installing smoke filters in air intakes would provide another level of safety, reducing risk. That is what mitigation is all about. Mitigation addresses risks and lowers vulnerability to reduce impacts on business operations.

Figure 17.3

This diagram represents the relationship between risk vulnerability and resilience.

There are several good risk assessment tools available to determine hazards and vulnerability, such as that from Kaiser Permanente (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan 2001). It can be as simple as a high or low designation, but assigning risk for hazards helps establish priorities (Figure 17.4). In most, the hazards are categorized by type, including naturally occurring, human-related, mechanical-technological, and hazardous materials events. Tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes are considered naturally occurring events. Terrorism, bomb threats, break-ins, and civil disturbances are considered human-caused hazards. Mechanical and technological events include equipment failure, loss of utilities, information systems outages, and data breaches or supply shortages. Hazardous material events encompass chemical spills and radiologic and biohazard exposures. Creating an exhaustive list of all possible hazards is not realistic.

Figure 17.4

(See color insert.) Example of hazard and vulnerability assessment tool. (From Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan, Kaiser hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA), Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan, Oakland, CA, 2001.)

For risk assessment, facility management can and should anticipate those hazards most likely to impact a facility based on location and past history. Consider possible hazards that could damage facility operations either directly or indirectly. An electrical fire within an animal room is an example of direct damage to operations. There could be loss of animals and research, and perhaps injury to staff members. A truck carrying “just-in-time” animal diets involved in a serious crash hundreds of miles away is an example of indirect damage. Both impact how business will be conducted, and both could result in loss of research. Determining assessment priorities becomes a factor when allocating funding for mitigation and response. Facilities located along coastlines or in low areas near rivers might be assigned a high risk for flooding. Flooding could be the result of a hurricane, tsunami, or a large water main break in the street adjacent to a facility. Flooding is the hazard that requires a risk assignment.

Ultimately, vulnerability is what is left in the risk box when all the mitigation, planning, and preparation are done. A facility located inland away from a major waterway might have a higher vulnerability to an earthquake or tornado. Vulnerability is also tied to what mitigation has occurred at a particular location. A facility in a known floodplain with levees, flood walls, or submarine door installations is less vulnerable to flooding than a facility with no mitigation. Assessing vulnerability requires a thorough knowledge of location and operations to provide a complete picture of risk. Planning and preparation enhance mitigation techniques to reduce risk and the overall vulnerability of a facility.

Mitigation

Mitigation involves addressing vulnerabilities identified during the risk assessment to reduce or eliminate their impact. In the long run, mitigation is often far less expensive than rebuilding after a crisis. However, funding is often an issue delaying or preventing mitigation. A commonly cited example is cryopreservation. This is a proven strategy to protect valuable strains of animals, yet this important expenditure is often not included as a line item in research or departmental operating budgets. Even though this is an up-front expenditure, the costs associated with not having cryopreserved strains in terms of redevelopment and lost research time can be significantly more (Thorat et al. 2013). Further considerations for research continuity include repositioning emergency power or backing up vital records at accessible, off-site locations. Organizational leadership must resolve critical issues when forming mitigation plans, such as how much damage is an organization willing to take in the event of a crisis and how much damage can be prevented by mitigation? How much loss of animal lives and research is acceptable? Mitigation costs compared with the costs of catastrophic loss are calculable. Hurricanes Katrina and Ike impeded or ended long, successful research careers due to the loss of data and animals, extension of project timelines, or institutional budget cuts (Willyard 2010).

Very few institutions have the resources to respond to and recover from crises without outside help. Facility management should develop a network with surrounding institutions, vendors, and emergency response agencies to aid in emergency response and recovery. For example, development of an evacuation plan to preserve irreplaceable animals is a good insurance policy (Willyard 2010). Initiating a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with other institutions to accept evacuated laboratory animals can save many irreplaceable colonies. Consider working with facilities in different geographic areas, as they are less likely to be impacted by the same event. Communicate often with the receiving institutions so that all parties are apprised of real-time inventories, housing availability, and staffing needs. Space utilization fluctuates from month to month, and space available today for emergency housing at another institution might not be available at the time required. The receiving institution should ensure that it can be prepared within a 96-hour notice to receive animals should conditions warrant that type of action. This constant stream of information will assist in preparedness operations for both institutions (Figure 17.5).

Figure 17.5

Evacuation of irreplaceable animals.

Who makes the decision on evacuation or when to evacuate? What guidelines are used to make the decision? Will the plan include a priority list for evacuation? These questions must be answered as part of the planning process, especially as evacuation of some facilities, those with very large animal populations, could take upwards of 2–3 days. Facility management should evaluate both the time and coordination metrics for evacuation and transport within a variety of time constraints”“immediate, short-term (within 12–24 hours), and long-term (within a week). The biosecurity of research animals and humans is another consideration in evacuation. What techniques will be used to ensure biosecurity for rodents? One method used successfully is to wrap complete racks with installed cages (water bottles turned upside down) with plastic pallet wrap. The racks can be quickly moved from building to building or loaded on trucks for transport to a safe location. Certain large animals, such as nonhuman primates, have human health risks, making coordination of their evacuation and transport in a short period of time difficult. Ultimately, there may also have to be a decision to euthanize some or all animals.

Both the Guide and Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of September 22, 2010 (European Commission 2010), on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes contain text regarding euthanasia of laboratory animals during emergency situations. Euthanasia guidelines under emergency conditions must be evaluated during the planning stages, as a great deal of thought is required to develop appropriate euthanasia methods for instances when animals cannot be relocated. Specific personnel need to be trained and psychologically prepared to undertake this difficult task, as disaster response may require euthanasia of large populations of animals. Accommodations for mass euthanasia of rodents must also be considered. For example, multiple carbon dioxide euthanasia stations for rodents may be necessary to euthanize large colonies of rodents in a short time frame. The standard single euthanasia station would require extended periods of time to complete this task, rendering it ineffective in rapid response (Roble et al. 2010). Sufficient quantities of carbon dioxide may also be unavailable for larger rodent facilities. Facilities with larger species of animals or aquatics will face similar challenges in euthanasia.

Some facilities may be able to provide safe housing for responders on campus. How will food, water, and bath facilities be provided? Your plan should also include alternate housing arrangements for responders. When assessing risk, safe areas outside the expected impact area can be identified that are less likely to sustain damage from a natural event. Contracts can be negotiated with hotels both inside and outside of predicted impact zones months in advance to provide housing on short notice of 48 hours or less. The contract should guarantee a certain number of rooms to be available. Other items to consider in negotiating alternate housing are geographic location, backup power for lights and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC), Internet connectivity, and the ability to provide meals to responders. Are vendors available to provide catering or should facilities maintain stocks of minimally perishable foods, such as meals ready to eat (MREs) (Roble et al. 2010)? Other considerations are security and the ability to travel back into the disaster zone. Special arrangements developed before catastrophes will identify and provide clearance for responders to reenter disaster areas. Examples include creation of essential personnel lists, special identification badges, and vehicle placards. These prearrangements do not guarantee entry, as lapses in communication between essential facility personnel and local or nonlocal law enforcement or other officials may occur and impede entry of essential personnel. Discussing and providing a solution for this contingency will hopefully eliminate its occurrence. Additional options include using a tiered system to categorize responders. Animal health responders are often in a high tier, just behind fire, police, and medical personnel. Other institutions find that establishing an escort plan may be effective in some situations. Essential personnel rendezvous at a predetermined location and are escorted to the facility by emergency personnel postevent.

Preparedness

Crisis Preparedness and Response Training

Just as BC planning increases a successful return to normal operations in the aftermath of an emergency or disaster, training enhances the successful execution of a crisis plan. Ejeta et al. (2015) recognized that although awareness and incidence of disasters are increasing, effective preparedness is not increasing concurrently. Gowan et al. (2015) further categorized training needs to the level of behavioral preparedness”“ensuring that individual personnel have the resilience to handle crisis.

The aim of training is to familiarize all staff members with crisis response procedures so that they become an automatic reaction in an emergent situation. This requires frequent personnel training sessions. Training sessions are enhanced by the input from all levels of laboratory animal personnel to most faithfully reproduce emergent situations. Interactive web-based training modules offered by FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute or local emergency management courses are helpful resources. Ideally, these training exercises will validate the emergency plan, develop staff competency, and test established procedures.

Emergency response plans are fluid, living plans and should be reviewed and revised yearly and after each incident. When plans become stagnant, they are no longer effective. Facility management needs to nurture plans through drills. With repeated simulations, areas of weakness can be identified and addressed. When weaknesses are identified, the plan should be updated to document changes. Emergency preparedness is a multifaceted objective, and there is not a set way to achieve this goal appropriately. There are many types of exercises for use with personnel in crisis preparedness training. These all extend the utility of the written plan. Each component carries equal weight; one type of exercise does not substitute for another. The remainder of this section focuses on several of these exercises, such as tabletop exercises, facility drills, and specific personnel development.

Drilling the Plan

Far too often, the existence of a written plan promotes a false sense of security. Plans will fail due to a lack of staff preparedness. Facilities need to develop instruction methods to introduce the plan to personnel. This will provide the foundation for emergency response. Personnel who do not have at least a familiarity with plans will not respond appropriately or timely when required. Training exercises can be divided into two categories: discussion-based exercises, including seminars, workshops, and tabletops, or more complex operations-based exercises, including drills and full-scale exercises. An excellent outline and training program is available through FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute (2015). Several training types will be briefly outlined here. Ultimately, training exercises will test procedures and increase staff confidence to respond appropriately in the stress of a calamitous event.

Types of Exercises

Seminars and workshops. Seminars and workshops serve to orient staff to response plans. These are opportunities to teach toward the plan or allow for discussion or development of plans or portions of plans. These planning sessions often result in the creation of emergency operating procedures (Swearengen et al. 2010). Lecture and discussion instruction are the recommended first steps in developing a training exercise program (Cabinet Office and National Security and Intelligence 2014). These can be tailored for distribution as lectures, small groups, or one-on-one training. Plan dissemination or discussion may differ depending on the job category for involved personnel. Focus and emphasis should be given to plan sections or topics that will be relevant to a given audience. For example, computer security may not be relevant to certain personnel, but a critical item for others. These orientation techniques give essential personnel the opportunity to discuss the plans and learn their proposed role and the roles of others.
Tabletop exercises. Tabletop or scenario exercises are based on hypothetical, yet realistic events. The success of the exercise can be enhanced if all participants are familiar with the crisis plans prior to the exercise. The exercise usually takes place around a table with participants under the guidance of a facilitator. The group is given a scenario to discuss and formulate a course of action in response to the crisis. These events allow for deliberate, well-considered problem solving, thus strengthening their use in the identification of weaknesses in emergency plans. It provides an opportunity to validate and update the plan as necessary. Tabletop exercises may be conducted at both the department and interdepartmental levels and are usually a planned event. Careful attention to detail in preparing the scenario is crucial to a successful tabletop exercise. Mortell and Nicholls (2013) suggest that tabletop exercises may provide a false sense of security regarding preparation since these exercises are done with advanced preparation and notice, without the element of stress.
Live practice drills. Live practice drills are a rehearsal for an event. These can focus on training to a specific procedure or can be expanded to a full-scale exercise that involves the entire facility staff and may extend to outside response agencies, like the local police. These test the logistics of execution, lines of communication, and physical capabilities of the facilities (FEMA Emergency Management Institute 2015). This type of exercise helps participants build confidence by simulating the crisis. The exercise also serves to identify potential weaknesses in the response, such as unanticipated supply needs or lack of communication, teamwork, or leadership capabilities.

Training raises awareness of the types of crises the staff may encounter and, consequently, how to effectively prepare and respond. Training also builds confidence in the staff’s ability to respond quickly and without hesitation or confusion. Some emergencies and disasters can be very overwhelming; however, training mitigates the stress of dealing with each situation. All staff considered essential personnel, or who are responsible for planning, training, or crisis preparedness and response, should participate. Inclusion of personnel from other key departments (principal investigators, facility services, environmental health and safety, biosafety, etc.) or outside agencies (i.e., fire and police departments) is essential and should be considered. The FEMA Emergency Management Institute (https://training.fema.gov/is/) provides excellent training courses on all the above topics.

Nontechnical Skill Training

Personnel are the most critical aspect of crisis response. Without personnel, no plan can be implemented. Furthermore, no two crises will be the same, so no plan can account for all contingencies, often necessitating creativity from responders. Most facilities assume that personnel will be available to implement a crisis plan, but facilities must recognize the reasons that people will not respond to a crisis (Davidson et al. 2009; Adams and Berry 2012). Major reasons include fear, other real or perceived responsibilities, uncertainty, inability to reach the work site, or not understanding the importance of their role. Human behavior will impact all responses. Many authors recognize that preparedness training must account for and focus on human behavior to create an empowered employee during the response (Donaho 2014; Ejeta et al. 2015; Gowan et al. 2015). This employee then has practiced skills, bestowed through training. Ultimately, a responder must be able to remain calm and assess the situation rapidly and make a decision. If personnel are not prepared for the psychological aspects inherent in crisis response, they may not respond appropriately, no matter how well they know the plan. As suggested by Crichton and Flin (2001), laboratory animal program leaders should invest appropriate time increasing the nontechnical skills of their employees to enhance their response capabilities.

These skills, such as decision making, leadership, teamwork, and stress management, are as important as the knowledge of the crisis response plan or on-the-job skills (Crichton and Flin 2001). Increasing this skill set has a twofold purpose: first, it may assist in identifying personnel with strong nontechnical skills who could be assigned leadership roles during an emergency response, and second, it will increase the confidence of responding personnel. A majority of polled responders following a disaster stated they looked for guidance from upper management before acting (Pullium et al. 2014). This could lead to serious delays if upper management is not readily available. Thus, the need for leadership and decision making in response is imperative. There may not be time or a way to communicate effectively in a crisis, and personnel should have the training and confidence to make a decision or lead a response. Personnel may also have to work and communicate effectively with unfamiliar persons during crisis. These skills need to be learned and strengthened prior to the crisis.

Personnel do not necessarily fear for their own safety during a response; however, it is likely that they will fear for the safety of another. Davidson et al. (2009) found that families and pets are the oft-cited reasons that people do not come to work during or following a disaster. This holds true for persons considered essential personnel. Facility management must account for this attrition and determine the minimum number of effective responders required to maintain an operation. Facility management can mitigate attrition by determining what factors reduce willingness to work, and creating a contingency plans for these. Considerations must include

Care for dependents: Can children or pets be provided safe location on site with parents, or can other assured care be provided while parents are at the disaster site?
Transportation: Can people get to work, and what methods can be used to facilitate this?
Personnel feeling that they will be cared for on site: Will there be food, shelter, and bedding provided, or perhaps a supervisor or other personnel who can provide psychological support?

Facility management must verify that personnel understand the importance of their jobs and what the facility will do to protect and support them and their families. Staff will likely have significant internal struggles regarding what to do during most catastrophic events. Preparation to assuage these concerns should begin early in crisis response planning to increase likelihood success.

A regular training program will aid all staff, whether serving as an introduction for new staff or as a refresher course for long-term staff. At the end of the training exercises, all staff should be familiar with their potential roles in crisis response, either individually or as a team; have a good working knowledge of the response plan; know who the key decision makers are; and be able to identify methods of communication before, during, and after an emergency.

Response

Response takes place during or immediately following a crisis. This phase is focused primarily on the safety of animals and humans and attempting to minimize damage to infrastructure or equipment. In principle, the initial response to a crisis will be coordinated by local government’s emergency services, that is, first responders such as police, fire departments, and emergency medical services. These responders will likely exist within the hierarchy of an incident command system (ICS). Nearby municipalities and state and volunteer agencies may assist as available. The scope of danger in a facility may not become clear until later in response, and often external authorities may control access to the facility until the danger has been assessed and resolved.

The first responder’s mission is to take action to save lives and prevent further damage. Wingfield et al. (2010) recognized that it cannot be expected that these responders will have the capability to handle animals in a laboratory animal setting. For a lab animal facility, the appropriate response will depend on the essential personnel. As described previously, the safety, well-being, and effectiveness of the response team depends on their previous preparation. The safety of personnel is the first priority in a crisis; the animals may become secondary. Often, the initial response is a damage assessment to determine if areas or buildings are safe to enter. Hazards have to be identified and corrected before animal care can commence. For a lab animal facility, the appropriate response will depend on the essential personnel available.

Related to external control of disaster sites, a frequent problem during the response is the inability of personnel to travel to or enter the animal holding facilities. As mentioned earlier, essential personnel must carry identification providing them access to the site. In addition, first responders must recognize these forms of identification or must be informed of the entry requirements for facility essential personnel. Unsafe circumstances may prevent access; however, first responders and essential personnel must be able to communicate and recognize one another to engage appropriately.

Once on site, the exact actions needed during a response are unpredictable. Essential personnel may find themselves in unfamiliar locations, stymied by not having appropriate equipment due to restricted access points and stuck in the dark. Responders must rely on their training and adhering to facility standard operating procedures (SOPs) as closely as possible, but anticipate the need for improvisation and creativity. Three of the most recent large-scale animal facility disasters involved flooding”“all responded in a different manner, emphasizing the individual nature of disaster (Schub 2002; Goodwin and Donaho 2010; Pullium et al. 2014).

Incident Command

Bigley and Roberts (2001) cite an ICS as a best-practice system for emergency management. The concept of ICS grew out of management studies of the disastrous 1970s’ California wildfires, which found numerous holes in emergency response and sought to create a standardized response system to emergency and disaster (Jensen and Thompson 2016). The ICS established a common, flexible framework allowing multiple crisis response agencies to interact effectively and efficiently (Jensen and Thompson 2016). FEMA provides a description of the use of an ICS as an integrative management tool, combining multiple agencies or departments into an effective response structure (FEMA Emergency Management Institute 2015). Briefly, at a local, state, or national level, the ICS structure consists of an incident commander, command staff, and general staff (Smith and Kuldau 2014). The incident commander has overall response leadership, and the command staff is composed of safety, public information, and liaison officers (Smith and Kuldau 2014). The liaison officer coordinates activities among the various agencies involved. At the next level of ICS is the general staff. Within general staff are section chiefs representing operations, planning, logistics, and finance and administration (Smith and Kuldau 2014). This hierarchy enhances information exchange and rapid decision making. Using this modular system, ICS can be tailored and scaled to adapt to each situation. Laboratory animal facilities are recommended to develop their own ICS structures, which generally exist as an extension of the general staff. Descriptions of ICS structures for laboratory animal facilities can be found in Vogelweid (1998) and Roble et al. (2010). These descriptions provide outlines for the integration of the laboratory animal facility responders within a local, state, or national ICS and provide guidance on the personnel who should be included within facility ICS. These personnel include, but are not limited to, directors, veterinarians and technicians, husbandry staff, and administrative staff. Successful use of an ICS requires the appropriate training and understanding of the system for all individual participants (Jensen and Waugh 2014). The concept of the ICS must be included within training sessions”“both discussion based and operations based. The same skills required to manage the response to crisis are required to work within an ICS: leadership, communication ability, situational awareness, capable decision making, and creativity (Crichton et al. 2005). These skills enhance an ICS and aid in creating calm and order from chaos. Having a dedicated animal facility representative within the incident command structure improves communication and enhances the likelihood of decisions that benefit the animal facility.

Communication Methods

Coordination of the crisis response cannot happen without appropriate communication. This includes the ability to communicate the risk of and response to the emergency among those at the site, those in the command center, and the general public (McCormick 2015). Satellite phones are most frequently used when landline infrastructure is damaged (McCormick 2015). Experience shows that these and other forms of communication, including cell phones, may fail in disaster areas as infrastructure is damaged or service is overwhelmed. Satellite phones prove unreliable due to weather or limited link availability, as first responders use the same satellite systems. The traditional public safety communications systems using two-way radio (often called walkie-talkies if handheld) can also become limited during disasters. Portable radio repeaters to extend handheld walkie-talkie ranges can be rented to establish a radio communications network in an emergency. This can be preplanned with contracts ready when needed. Similarly, ham radio (also two-way radio) provides an ad hoc communications system when all else fails (Reid 2016). Licensed ham radio groups commonly set up emergency networks during disasters. A new option is the portable broadband antenna system capable of moving large amounts of data to support video, voice, and text communications. These systems deploy quickly and provide private networking virtually anywhere. Institutions must not forget the value of pen and paper as well. Establishing known meeting points and regular meeting times as part of crisis planning allows for safety checks and information dissemination. Simple systems, such as writing instructions on black- or whiteboards or paper and easels, give responders directions and updates. Regular town hall meetings during the recovery phase are also highly recommended, as these can be conducted in the absence of power. However, as McCormick (2015) states, more and more reliance is falling on social media and mobile-based technology.

Superstorm Sandy signified a shift in the use of social media for disaster response and information gathering (Cohen 2013). National organizations such as FEMA and private citizens and institutions alike put forth information on the superstorm via social media platforms such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Other technologies, such as Short Message Service (SMS) (text messaging) and websites, also provided a ready spread of information. FEMA reached 6 million Twitter users with one tweet and increased its Facebook users to 300,000 (from 12,000) on the day Hurricane Sandy made landfall (Cohen 2013). Bonnan-White et al. (2014) exemplified the use of crisis informatics during a snow disaster and defined this as a new method of harnessing communication for crisis management. This real-time access to information is being channeled by government and private agencies to improve situational awareness. Social media represents enormous potential in crisis response when information is conveyed accurately. Personnel empowered to present and receive real-time data will make significantly improved decisions and likely improve response. The real-time power of social media may be exemplified as well in horrific crisis situations, such as active shooting or other domestic terror threats where communications are not blocked, but access to devices other than handheld ones may be limited by the danger. The earliest or only information obtained in these instances may come from social media sites (Gillard 2011).

The DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s Virtual Social Media Working Group has published five documents providing guidance on the use of social media in emergency response (U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology 2015). These documents provide an excellent starting point for developing a strategy for use of social media. This includes determining the right technology; determining security measures regarding the intended audience for the information, either institutional personnel or the general public; and understanding legal ramifications of information spread. An active social media policy also allows institutions to provide information ahead of the inevitable rumors that swirl around disasters. Misinformation can spread very quickly. Accurate information disseminated quickly establishes credibility and trust, but it can be difficult to determine the veracity of information rapidly. For example, during Hurricane Ike in 2008, news reports of escaped tigers on Galveston Island circulated widely when, in fact, it was rumor (KVUE Staff 2008). Institutions should be prepared to have personnel actively monitoring social media sites and correcting misinformation as soon as possible. There are a number of ways to facilitate information verification by including embedded hashtags (#) to identify topic threads, keywords, URLs, photos, or videos to provide greater information (U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology 2015). Keywords and hashtags allow rapid scanning of messages for relevant content. Determining appropriate hashtags and keywords in advance of crises is a useful exercise and should be part of the planning process. This can also be used to crowdsource information and aggregate greater information or understanding about the situation from the general public posting information on what it witnesses. This information gathering and analysis will likely be done by outside agencies such as FEMA or other responders, as this requires a complex coordination and intelligence gathering framework (U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology 2015). Establishing a social media response team within the command center is vital in today’s interconnected world. This is especially true to ensure that the proper information is given to the general public regardless of the size or scope of the crisis.

Recovery

In the recovery phase, actions are taken to return to a normal or safer situation following an emergency or disaster. This will be different for all facilities, and this chapter aims to provide considerations for this phase. The process of recovery can be the most difficult part. Recovery begins after the initial response is completed or winding down. While working to assess the damage or impact on facilities, equipment, and animals, recovery teams may be strained by less than ideal conditions. Work may be physically taxing and emotionally stressful, especially if there was catastrophic injury to animal populations. Crisis recovery should be considered in dual parts: institutional repairs, including facility restoration and animal replacement required to return to normal work, and emotional repairs, required to return employees to normal work.

Many excellent references exist on mechanisms of recovery (Schub 2002; Goodwin and Donaho 2010; Swearengen et al. 2010; Ikeda 2012). These provide direction on steps that all institutions should include as part of their planning to facilitate their recovery. An accurate description of facility inventory (animal and equipment) should be prepared and maintained for insurance purposes. This should include all specialty equipment associated with an animal facility, including caging, sanitation, and sterilization devices, and specialized research and surgical instrumentation (Goodwin and Donaho 2010).

Personnel’s mental and physical well-being is of paramount importance as well. Facilities should provide trauma and grief counseling for all impacted employees, especially if animals were lost or damage necessitates euthanasia during the recovery phase. Posttraumatic stress disorder is well recognized in survivors of disasters (Galea et al. 2005). Mental health professionals must be available to provide this therapeutic service. Early intervention and debriefing include the use of psychological techniques such as critical incident stress debriefing (CISD), followed by further therapy as required (McNally et al. 2003). CISD should be done within the first 24 hours of a disaster and may significantly improve therapeutic recovery from anxiety or depression (Donaho 2014). Costs for these services should be included by institutions in planning stages. Many facilities have also held memorial services for those animals lost, as part of the healing process (Goodwin and Donaho 2010; Ikeda 2012). Employee care may also require provisions for furlough or relocation as personnel requirements are reduced because of limited day-to-day operations.

Recovery also requires reporting details of the crisis to the appropriate government funding and regulatory agencies and accrediting agencies such as OLAW, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and AAALAC International (Schub 2002; Swearengen et al. 2010; Ejeta et al. 2015). These will be dependent on whether institutions hold assurances, registrations, or accreditation with these organizations. The crisis response plans should contain contact information for accrediting agencies. Each of these organizations, as well as the American Veterinary Medical Association, provides excellent guidance for both reporting structure and crisis response, as outlined below. Notification is a task that is best completed as soon as possible following the crisis for two reasons. First, this fulfills reporting requirements, and second, it protects the facility against negative or inappropriate press. Activists against biomedical research involving animals will often twist these events to meet their agenda. Appropriate documentation and evaluation by regulatory agencies can provide protection against exaggerated claims. As the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and veterinarians will play an instrumental role in assisting management with reporting, developing mechanisms for IACUC continuance is also essential (Roble et al. 2010).

Concepts of Business Continuity Management

BC planning is important, yet frequently overlooked, in the overall scheme of crisis planning. BC planning provides the framework to return to business after a disrupting event, large or small. In the laboratory animal setting, BC means reestablishing the ability to conduct research. As discussed previously, a BC plan is a natural continuation to a crisis management plan. Generally, these plans should be created independently, but a properly constituted crisis response plan may eliminate the need for a BC plan if all measures effectively mitigate damage. However, a BC plan may be necessary in noncrisis situations. Snyder (2013) provides insight into this concept through the example of a leaky roof. A “leaky roof is not a crisis situation, but the leak may impact equipment storage or an employee location. In either case, alternate work location plans should be implemented so that critical business processes may continue” (Snyder 2013).

Similarly to a crisis response plan, a BC plan accounts for both internal and external factors that disrupt business. Internal factors include items like computer failure or loss of a piece of equipment due to mechanical failure, which may not be in the scope of a crisis management plan. External factors are items such as a strike at a manufacturing plant that disrupts the supply chain (Snyder 2013). Each of these problems may not be considered a crisis, but they assuredly have the potential to impact research. The BC plan should cover the most to least likely events an animal facility may face. As with crisis planning, BC planning is program specific and should be developed by the individuals involved in the emergency response. The animal facility plan should be coordinated with the overall organizational BC plan and all pertinent internal departments and external entities. Effective animal facility administration requires expertise in personnel management, resource management, education, regulatory compliance, and fiscal management. To effectively integrate these aspects into a BC plan, the planning team should include personnel from departments like veterinary resources, human resources, payroll, benefits, security, information technology, and environmental health and safety. Continuity planning should detail how the organization will handle failures of varying significance. For example, initial stage planning must provide methods to ensure supply chain continuity in the event that electronic databases or ordering systems are unavailable. Maintaining a secured supply of currency on site is recommended for emergent use. Having a basic response strategy for the facility both during and after a crisis will help employees minimize disruption. For example, does the BC plan include a mechanism to pay and support employees through each phase of the crisis? Security in the knowledge that one can take care of personal issues helps employees focus on the recovery and continued success of the business.

Think of BC planning as proactive insurance, a method to return to function with the least amount of disruption. Facilities with an appropriate, rehearsed BC plan more effectively and promptly respond to and recover from emergencies.

Benefits of Crisis and Business Continuity Planning: Resilience

A resilient organization is able to rapidly respond and move forward with operations despite conditions that disrupt normal routines. An excellent review described both crisis management and BC as the pillars supporting a resilient organization, further emphasizing the importance of these two concepts (Snyder 2013). A resilient organization must be able to withstand all hazards and sustain its mission. The DHS Risk Lexicon (September 2008) defines resilience as the “ability to resist, absorb, recover from or successfully adapt to adversity or a change in conditions.” As described throughout this chapter, resilience is built through planning for and mitigation against known risks, through leadership and training, and by incorporating trained personnel throughout the organization into the design and execution of the plan. The ability to adapt quickly to disruptions, while maintaining continuous business operations and safeguarding people, assets, and reputation, promotes flexibility. Planning for the future, whatever it brings, instills resilience. Five key considerations for developing a crisis and BC plan for the laboratory animal research facility include

In the wake of several natural disasters, research organizations are now required to develop emergency plans as per the OLAW. The eighth edition of the Guide requires animal facilities to develop and maintain a current crisis plan. OLAW and Directive 2012/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of September 22, 2010, on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and AAALAC accreditation require a crisis plan document.
These plans aid in mitigating loss of important research assets and help generate documentation needed for insurance claims and assistance through government agencies like FEMA or funding organizations.
Crisis and BC plans aid in acquiring the supplies necessary to care for animals and personnel during a disaster.
The process of crisis and BC planning will aid in identifying weaknesses in the organization and improves understanding of facility function.
Crisis and BC planning protects the organization’s image and reputation. A good reputation is important for the prospects of securing grants and personnel and gaining public support.

Conclusion

Those who have experienced a disaster understand the turmoil of emotion that accompanies it. There is confusion and urgency in needing to ensure the humane treatment of animals, the safety of personnel, and the return to normalcy as soon as possible. Crisis and BC planning not only helps to safeguard the organization from catastrophe; it also prepares the animal care staff and other key departments for any disaster. Several sources rich in advice on developing continuity plans and emergency management are included in the references for further review, study, and application. Recovery does not end when the lights come back on and the cleanup is done. A major disaster can take years of work to return to the same status as prior to the disaster. This chapter is dedicated to the brave men and women who have given, and will give of themselves, unselfishly to protect the laboratory animals in their charge.

Appendix 17.1. Resources for Crisis Plan Development

AAALAC: Disaster preparedness and response for veterinarians. http://www.aaalac.org/accreditation/faq_landing.cfm#H.

Alliance for Biomedical Research in Europe (EBRA): www.biomedeurope.org.

American Association for Laboratory Animal Science: Checklist of disaster planning expectations in the Guides and Animal Welfare Regulations. https://www.aalas.org/iacuc/iacuc_resources/disaster-preparedness#.Vq18ML8oqvU.

Americans for Medical Progress: www.amprogress.org.

American Veterinary Medical Association: A collection of topical papers regarding disaster preparedness for animals. https://www.avma.org/news/journals/collections/pages/avma-collections-disaster-preparedness-and-response.aspx.

Animal Welfare Information Center: U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service National Agricultural Library. https://awic.nal.usda.gov/.

Canadians for Health Research: www.chrcrm.org/.

CDC: http://emergency.cdc.gov/.

DHS: BC plan. http://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/BusinessContinuityPlan.pdf.

FEMA: Online training module to increase awareness and preparedness among animal owners about typical hazards, how animals are affected, and what can be done to reduce the impact of disasters. https://training.fema.gov/emi.aspx.

FEMA Emergency Management Institute: Online training module to guide emergency management officials, animal owners, and industries in preparing community disaster plans.

Filling the Ark: Animal Welfare in Disasters (2009), by Leslie Irvine: http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1977_reg.html.

Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR): fbresearch.org.

Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, National Academy of Sciences: dels.nas.edu/ilar/.

National Alliance of State Animal and Agricultural Emergency Programs Best Practices Library: Partners in disaster response. Includes lists of animal emergency response courses and reference materials. http://nasaaep.org/.

Office for Human Research Protections, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: www.hhs.gov/ohrp/.

OLAW: Provides links to resources about planning for and responding to natural and other disasters. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/disaster_planning.htm.

Resources for Crisis Management in Zoos and Other Animal Care Facilities (1999), edited by S. D. Chan, W. K. Baker, and D. L. Guerrero: http://www.amazon.com/Resources-Crisis-Management-Animal-Facilities/dp/1929672020.

“Sandy Destroys Years of Medical Research”: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/health/sandy-research-time/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn.

Scientists Center for Animal Welfare (SCAW): www.scaw.com.

Society for Neuroscience: Guidelines for crisis management. Includes supporting institutions for assistance when research is questioned by activists. www.sfn.org.

References

Adams, L. M., and D.Berry. 2012. Who will show up? Estimating ability and willingness of essential hospital personnel to report to work in response to a disaster. Online J Issues Nurs17 (2):8. [PubMed: 22686116]
Arms, M. M., and J. D.Van Zante. 2010. Wildfire evacuation: Outrunning the witch’s curse”“One animal center’s experience. ILAR J51 (2):158–163. [PubMed: 20375438]
Bigley, G. A., and K. H.Roberts. 2001. The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Acad Manage J44 (6):1281–1299.
Bonnan-White, J., J.Shulman, and A.Bielecke. 2014. Snow tweets: Emergency information dissemination in a US county during 2014 winter storms. PLoS Curr6. [PMC free article: PMC4323415] [PubMed: 25685629]
Cabinet Office and National Security and Intelligence. 2014. Emergency planning and preparedness: Exercises and training. London: Cabinet Office and National Security and Intelligence. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/emergency-planning-and-preparedness-exercises-and-training (cited January 20, 2016).
Canadian Council on Animal Care. 2016. Crisis management program 2016. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Animal Care. http://www.ccac.ca/en_/assessment/acc/resources_acc/crisis (cited January 28 2016).
Chakma, J., G. H.Sun, J. D.Steinberg, S. M.Sammut, and R.Jagsi. 2014. Asia’s ascent”“Global trends in biomedical R&D expenditures. N Engl J Med370 (1):3–6. [PubMed: 24382062]
Cohen, S. E.2013. Sandy marked a shift for social media use in disasters. Emergency Management. http://www.emergencymgmt.com/disaster/sandy-social-media-use-in-disasters.html.
Crichton, M., and R.Flin. 2001. Training for emergency management: Tactical decision games. J Hazard Mater88 (2–3):255–266. [PubMed: 11679197]
Crichton, M. T., K.Lauche, and R.Flin. 2005. Incident command skills in the management of an oil industry drilling incident: A case study. J Contingencies Crisis Manage13 (3):116–128.
Davidson, J. E., A.Sekayan, D.Agan, L.Good, D.Shaw, and R.Smilde. 2009. Disaster dilemma: Factors affecting decision to come to work during a natural disaster. Adv Emerg Nurs J31 (3):248–257. [PubMed: 20118877]
Donaho, J. 2014. Building the human component into contingency plans. Lab Anim (NY)43 (1):27–32. [PubMed: 24356019]
Ejeta, L. T., A.Ardalan, and D.Paton. 2015. Application of behavioral theories to disaster and emergency health preparedness: A systematic review. PLoS Curr7. [PMC free article: PMC4494855] [PubMed: 26203400]
European Commission. 2010. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and the council of 22 September on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Brussels: European Commission.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1996. Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2015. About the agency. Washington, DC: FEMA. http://www.fema.gov/about-agency.
FEMA Emergency Management Institute. 2015. ICS resource center. Washington, DC: FEMA. http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/ICSResource/index.htm (cited December 24, 2015).
Galea, S., A.Nandi, and D.Vlahov. 2005. The epidemiology of post-traumatic stress disorder after disasters. Epidemiol Rev27:78–91. [PubMed: 15958429]
Gillard, E. 2011. Virginia Tech shooting reinforces the power of social media. Daily Press. http://articles.dailypress.com/2011-12-08/sports/dp-nws-tech-social-media-1209–20111208_1_twitter-and-facebook-twitter-website-power-of-social-media.
Goodwin, B. S., Jr., and J. C.Donaho. 2010. Tropical storm and hurricane recovery and preparedness strategies. ILAR J51 (2):104–119. [PubMed: 20375433]
Gowan, M. E., J. A.Sloan, and R. C.Kirk. 2015. Prepared for what? Addressing the disaster readiness gap beyond preparedness for survival. BMC Public Health15 (1):1139. [PMC free article: PMC4647663] [PubMed: 26576816]
Heath, S. E.1999. Animal Management in Disasters. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. What is a disaster?Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-disasters/what-is-a-disaster/.
Ikeda, T. 2012. Crisis management and recovery from the damage to the laboratory animal production facility due to the Great East Japan Earthquake. Exp Anim61 (1):1–11. [PubMed: 22293667]
Jensen, J., and S.Thompson. 2016. The incident command system: A literature review. Disasters40 (1):158–182. [PubMed: 26271932]
Jensen, J., and W. L.Waugh. 2014. The United States’ experience with the incident command system: What we think we know and what we need to know more about. J Contingencies Crisis Manage22 (1):5–17.
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan. 2001. Kaiser hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA). Oakland, CA: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan.
KVUE Staff. 2008. Busting the myths and rumors around Ike. http://www.kvue.com/story/news/local/2014/05/16/2176120/.
Lundberg, R., and H.Willis. 2015. Assessing homeland security risks: A comparative risk assessment of 10 hazards. Homeland Security Affairs11:1–23.
McCormick, S. 2015. New tools for emergency managers: An assessment of obstacles to use and implementation. Disasters40 (2). [PubMed: 26281801]
McNally, R. J., R. A.Bryant, and A.Ehlers. 2003. Does early psychological intervention promote recovery from posttraumatic stress?Psychol Sci Public Interest4 (2):45–79. [PubMed: 26151755]
Mortell, N., and S.Nicholls. 2013. Practical considerations for disaster preparedness and continuity management in research facilities. Lab Anim (NY)42 (10):F18–F24. [PubMed: 24051650]
National Institutes of Health, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. 2002. Public Health Service policy on humane care and use of laboratory animals. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare.
National Research Council. 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [PubMed: 21595115]
Palliyaguru, R., D.Amaratunga, and D.Baldry. 2014. Constructing a holistic approach to disaster risk reduction: The significance of focusing on vulnerability reduction. Disasters38 (1):45–61. [PubMed: 24325238]
Pullium, J. K., G. S.Roble, and M. A.Raymond. 2014. Emergency planning: Be prepared. Nature514 (7523):430. [PubMed: 25341773]
Reid, K. 2016. Where to go during a communications shutdown. Emergency Management, February3. http://www.emergencymgmt.com/disaster/Where-to-go-During-a-Total-Communications-Shutdown.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_content=email&utm_campaign=How%20Worried%20Should%20we%20be%20About%20the%20Zika%20Virus&utm_term=Where%20to%20go%20During%20a%20Total%20Communications%20Shutdown.
Roble, G. S., N. M.Lingenhol, B.Baker, A.Wilkerson, and R. J.Tolwani. 2010. A comprehensive laboratory animal facility pandemic response plan. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci49 (5):623–632. [PMC free article: PMC2949433] [PubMed: 20858365]
Schub, T. 2002. The year of the flood: Tropical Storm Allison’s impact on Texas Medical Center. Lab Anim (NY)31 (8):34–39. [PubMed: 12200584]
Smith, J. S., and G. A.Kuldau. 2014. Methods of instruction of the incident command system and related topics at US veterinary schools. Disaster Med Public Health Prep8 (6):505–510. [PubMed: 25412998]
Snyder, H. 2013. The Wikipedia of business resilience. Disaster Recovery Journal, April22. http://www.drj.com/articles/online-exclusive/thewikipedia-of-business-resilience.html.
Swearengen, J. R., K. J.Vargas, M. K.Tate, and N. S.Linde. 2010. Disaster preparedness in biocontainment animal research facilities: Developing and implementing an incident response plan (IRP). ILAR J51 (2):120–126. [PubMed: 20375434]
Thorat, R., S.Ahire, and A.Ingle. 2013. Re-establishment of a breeding colony of immunocompromised mice through revival of cryopreserved embryos. Lab Anim (NY)42 (4):131–134. [PubMed: 23511082]
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology. Virtual social media working group2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. http://www.firstresponder.gov/SitePages/Technology/Profile.aspx?s=Technology&itemID=16.
Vogelweid, C. M.1998. Developing emergency management plans for university laboratory animal programs and facilities. Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci37 (5):52–56. [PubMed: 12456133]
Willyard, C. 2010. When natural disasters strike, tragedy can unfold in the lab. Nat Med16 (6):616–617. [PubMed: 20526297]
Wingfield, W. E., B. E.Rollin, and R. A.Bowen. 2010. You have a disaster plan but are you really prepared?ILAR J51 (2):164–170. [PubMed: 20375439]

Bookshelf ID: NBK500442PMID: 29787220DOI: 10.1201/9781315152189-17

Contents