Moira Grant, PhD, FCSMLS(D) Richard Bochenek, CEM

1. 2014 May Enhancing the relevance of the Incident Management System (IMS) in public health emergency preparednessLessons learned Moira Grant, PhD, FCSMLS(D) Richard Bochenek, CEM

2. Presentation Objectives

3. Definition of IMS *Source: Emergency Management Ontario. Incident Management System (IMS) for Ontario; 2008:106.

4. Overview of the project • Phase • 1 • Phase • 2 • Phase • 3 • Phase • 4

5. Guiding Educational Theories

6. Challenges of using IMS in Public Health

7. Phase One – Adapting existing course materials

8. Phase One – Outcomes • 5 courses delivered to >100 learners • (“IMS 200 for Public Health Units”) • March 2011 to January 2012 • Lessons learned: • PH incidents are hyper-complex events • We need to focus on IMS concepts and targeted tools proven in public health investigations • We need to apply adult learning principles • Non-structured evaluations provide helpful feedback • If at first you don’t succeed …

9. Phase Two – Creating a new workshop platform

10. Emergency Management Cycle

11. Public Health Incident Management System First Responders

12. Emergency Plans Mapped to the Emergency Management Cycle HIRA IMS Incident Management System (IMS) Coordinates these activities in a standardized, flexible manner. ERP COOP • Communications • Training & Exercises

13. Phase Two – Outcomes • 3 courses delivered to ~60 learners • (“A Supplementary Training Module”) • February – December 2012 • Lessons learned: • New format resonates with PH professionals • - one-day interactive, IMS-based PHEP workshop • - it is neither IMS-200, nor a replacement for it • - it is IMS applied to PH environment • PH professionals seek to understand IMS in PH context • PH professionals are eager to share their expertise • Cross-sectoral/cross-disciplinary discussion enriches understanding of IMS

14. Phase Three – TTT & Customized Scenarios

15. Phase Three – Outcomes • 4 TTT courses: qualified 42 Facilitators from 26 (of 36) PHUs • 2 custom and 5 base scenarios. 194 learners • (“IMS for Public Health Training Module”) • December 2012 onward • Lessons learned • PHUs have widely varying needs and priorities for training • PH emergency planners see themselves partly as educators • IMS training can be a valuable networking and relationship-building tool

16. Phase Four – Supporting Delegated Workshops

17. Phase Four – Delegated workshops • 10 base and 7 custom scenarios. 338 Learners • 3 meetings of delegated facilitators (web or face-to-face) • October 2013 to present • Lessons learned • A hub-based delegated model leverages practitioner expertise and ensures sustainability of delivery • This PHEP application has relevance/transferability outside the PH sector • PHEP professionals seek networking opportunities • Ongoing support is a key success factor • Customized scenarios can serve as ‘booster packs’

18. Workbooks & Guidebook PHO support/resources for IMS module Base Slide Deck Collaborative website ‘PHEMTRAC’ Templates & checklists PHO workshop observers

19. Workshop Distribution

20. Conclusion Brian Schwartz Moira Grant Richard Bochenek Kyle Boulden Calli Citron Fayola Creft AntheaDarychuk Avril Dishaw JudythGulden Sanjay Khanna Amrita Maharaj Dawn Williams And especially to all those who provided their candid feedback! Thank you! For information related to this presentation, contact us at: epir@oahpp.ca