Volume 22, Issue 1

In recent years, public authorities and rescue services have been discussing how Medical First Responders (MFRs) should behave in an Active Violent Incident (AVI) where it is necessary to weigh up self-protection and the rescuing of others. The aim of this exploratory study is to generate a preliminary picture of how European MFRs position themselves on this and related questions. With the help of a network of experts, an AVI scenario and accompanying questionnaire were developed and pretested. A refined version was then distributed among MFRs in eight European countries and Israel. We performed descriptive statistics and tested for significant differences among the participating countries. 1164 MFRs completed the survey. In the absence of police protection, a majority of respondents opted against providing immediate casualty care (56.6 %). Under certain circumstances, however, the rest decided in favour. More than 65.5 % did not fear disciplinary or legal consequences for not providing assistance immediately. Even with police protection, one in ten respondents would still not enter a “yellow zone”, one in four would leave this to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) units specifically trained for such operations. While there are very few strong contrasts between MFRs with different work experience, roles (supervisor/instructor) or additional qualifications (e.g., firefighting, military service), there are significant differences between MFRs from participating countries. Most notably, (1) only Norwegian participants identified, on average, a clear paradigm shift from “safety first” to “controlled risk taking”; (2) while 69.8 % of the Austrian cohort were unwilling to enter without being escorted by the police, among Norwegians MFRs the figure was 42.7 %; (3) the question whether “weapons” are “useful” equipment in such a scenario is particularly divisive (ranging from 14.3 % of German to 58.9 % of Israeli respondents). Although most of the questions were answered in the same way by a large majority, significant differences can be observed, especially between countries. We offer various explanations for these and discuss whether MFRs can actually remain passive given the situational normative forces inherent to an AVI.

During the novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), nonprofits needed to quickly rethink their strategies concerning the sustainability of their organizations along with communication regarding the crisis. The pandemic presented unique opportunities for understanding how service-oriented nonprofits, who must share timely and accurate information across stakeholders and work closely with partner organizations, can deliver services during crisis periods. Utilizing a case study approach, the focus of this study is the impact of COVID-19 on the Federation of Virginia Food Banks (FVFB), which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit state association of food banks affiliated with Feeding America, by examining the use of crisis communication strategies utilized or not-utilized during the crisis response and recovery activities. The findings present practical implications for nonprofit organizations and their crisis response and recovery networks and a better understanding of the needs for nonprofit organizations to engage in crisis communication planning for diverse crises and planning resources.

Earthquakes, known for their widespread devastation, annually inflict catastrophic consequences globally. Swift and well-structured healthcare responses following earthquakes are pivotal in reducing their impact and mitigating loss of life. However, achieving this demands proactive strategic planning and effective preparedness before disaster strikes. While countries craft disaster response plans, their implementation often proves inadequate in managing the ensuing crisis comprehensively. This study proposes a paradigm shift by advocating for the utilization of widely accessible Family Health Centers (FHCs) as crucial hubs for post-earthquake healthcare continuity. Focused on these community-centric health units, our research delineates a strategic blueprint ensuring uninterrupted health services post an Istanbul earthquake. Integrating SWOT analysis, balanced scorecard, and operations research, this study holistically assesses the current landscape of FHCs and identifies imperative post-earthquake requisites. Insights gleaned from extensive literature review and expert consultations underpin this multifaceted approach.

This article argues for the inclusion of more East Asia-focused content, particularly regarding China and North Korea, in homeland security and emergency preparedness (HSEP) undergraduate curricula. It contends that current programs overemphasize the post-9/11 counterterrorism paradigm while neglecting state-level threats, especially from China as an ascendant geopolitical rival. China poses multifaceted challenges through cyberattacks, intellectual property theft, economic coercion, and potential military contingencies, such as invading Taiwan. North Korea's nuclear program and cyber activities also jeopardize U.S. homeland security. To prepare future professionals, the article recommends adding a “state actor threats” core subject matter area covering the histories, cultures, and political dynamics underlying these nations’ antagonistic policies. Cultivating deeper cultural competency about U.S. strategic competitors in East Asia is crucial for bolstering national security. Holistic education reform is needed to align HSEP programs with contemporary global geopolitical realities beyond traditional terrorism subjects.