Assessment of Household Emergency Plans and Preparedness in Corvallis, Oregon

Tuesday, June 6, 2017: 4:22 PM
410A, Boise Centre
Ashley D Sampsel , Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
John P Bigouette , Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Jeffrey Bethel , Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

BACKGROUND: All communities are susceptible to a wide array of emergencies, all of which carry a significant risk to public health. Assessing the level of household preparedness (i.e. supplies of food, water, medicine, radio, flashlight, etc.) can lead to targeted intervention strategies, hazard mitigation practices, and improved pre- and post- emergency planning. A Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) can assess the level of community preparedness in an accurate, reliable, and inexpensive manner. The objective of this CASPER was to determine the level of household preparedness in Corvallis, Oregon.

METHODS: A two-stage cluster sampling scheme consistent with established CASPER methodology was used. Thirty clusters (i.e. census blocks) within Corvallis were randomly identified with probability proportional to the number of housing units. The second stage included systematic sampling to approach seven households per cluster. A survey was developed from previous CASPERs and included questions assessing household characteristics, emergency plans, safety supplies, and communication methods. Teams of interviewers from a graduate-level Disaster Epidemiology class collected data on November 6, 2016. Data were entered into Epi Info 7 and weighted frequencies with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS: Sixty-four interviews were completed (30.5% completion rate) in which 50.3% were single family homes and 49.7% were multi-unit homes. Overall, 59.5% reported feeling either somewhat or well prepared for an emergency. Regarding preparedness items, 66.1% had an evacuation plan, 52.2% had a communication plan, 52.7% had a 3-day supply of food, and 58.1% had a 3-day supply of water. Households would primarily communicate with mobile phones (86.1%) and receive information through social media (34.2%) in the event of an emergency. About 80.8% of households reported having a first aid kit and 47.5% of households had a member who had taken first aid training in the previous two years. Only 44.0% of households reported a backup heat source and 67.3% had a working carbon monoxide detector.

CONCLUSIONS: Corvallis households were inconsistent in their level of preparedness. Local health officials should continue to increase the preparedness of households with information about basic supplies, first aid training, and importance of having a carbon monoxide detector. In the event of an emergency, repairs to cellular infrastructure should be prioritized due to the reliance of the community on them for communication with friends and family and with authorities. Future assessments of household preparedness should be prioritized in order to evaluate interventions to increase preparedness.