Health Care Lessons Learned in the Aftermath of September 11, 2001
New York, NY, December 10, 2014 /3BL Media/ – Fourteen years after the attack on the World Trade Center (WTC), a case study in the current issue of Annals of Global Health identifies several elements that have had a critical impact on the evolution of the WTC response and, directly or indirectly, on the health of the WTC-exposed population. The case study also recounts and assesses post-disaster monitoring efforts, recent scientific findings from the World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP), and explores the implications of these experiences for ongoing and future environmental disaster response.
Short-term 9/11 rescue and recovery actions have been followed by a long-term monitoring and treatment program, the World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP), which includes more than 60,000 WTC disaster responders and community members and is now funded by the Zadroga Act of 2010. This program has provided a framework for understanding the variable consequences of the WTC disaster, ensuring that lessons learned can be identified and incorporated into improved long-term programs.
Reauthorization of the Zadroga Act by Congress will ensure that these observations will have an opportunity to translate into a meaningful and sustainable clinical and research impact. Reauthorization is also crucial to ensuring that all responders and survivors of the World Trade Center disaster have continued access to World Trade Center Clinical Centers of Excellence, where the needs of responders and survivors are understood and necessary expertise and healthcare are available to all those exposed to the disaster.
“We have identified key elements of the WTC response that have affected the health of the exposed population and ongoing population monitoring and treatment,” comments lead author Michael Crane, MD, MPH, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. He and his co-authors call attention to the failure of government agencies to address widespread contamination of the local community. Residents were consequently exposed to the risks of toxic exposure. Responders also were put at risk by the failure of responsible agencies to enact and coordinate strict site health and safety policies during recovery and cleanup operations.
The case study provides insights into the many interconnected elements that determine the effectiveness of any public health disaster response. Among these are:
- Clinical Expertise and Data Collection – Putting experts on the scene who can recognize ongoing threats to health, record critical data, and institute essential monitoring programs.
- Site Safety and Worker Training – Lack of these measures caused lasting effects on the health of untrained responders in the WTC environment.
- Attention to Vulnerable Populations – Certain groups, such as schoolchildren from the area and children indirectly exposed through their own exposed parents, can be overlooked in the chaos of a large-scale disaster.
- Developing Trust and Transparency – The value of trust and transparency between the exposed populations and the public health authority in environmental disasters is well established and critical, but often not achieved.
According to the authors, operationalizing these ideals amidst the initial chaos and longer-term bureaucratic challenges that are an integral part of any disaster remains a daunting but essential mandate. They conclude that “Even in a relatively well-resourced environment, challenges regarding allocation of appropriate attention to vulnerable populations and integration of treatment response to significant medical and mental health comorbidities remain areas of ongoing programmatic development.”
Notes for editors
“The Response to September 11: A Disaster Case Study,” by Michael A. Crane, MD, MPH, Nomi C. Levy-Carrick, MD, MPhil, Laura Crowley, MD, Stephanie Barnhart, MD, MPH, Melissa Dudas, DO, Uchechukwu Onuoha, MD, MPH, Yelena Globina, MD, MPH, Winta Haile, BA, Gauri Shukla, MPH, and Fatih Ozbay, MD. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2014.08.215. It appears in Annals of Global Health, Volume 80, Issue 4 (2014) published by Elsevier.
Full text of this article is available to credentialed journalists upon request; contact Eileen Leahy at +1 732 238 3628 or email@example.com to obtain copies or you may access the article directly at http://www.annalsofglobalhealth.org/article/S2214-9996(14)00292-6/fulltext. Journalists wishing to interview the authors should contact Sid Dinsay, Associate Director, Media Relations, Mount Sinai Press Office, at +1 212 241 9200, +1 646 413 3493 (cell) or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Research reported in this article was supported by a contract with the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Contract number: +1 200 2011 39356.
About Annals of Global Health
Annals of Global Health, formerly published as The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, is an open-access, peer-reviewed Journal focused on global health. The Journal’s mission is to advance and disseminate knowledge of global health, promote research and foster the prevention and treatment of disease worldwide by supporting open dissemination and lively discourse about a wide range of the most important topics in global health and medicine. www.annalsofglobalhealth.org
Elsevier is a world-leading provider of information solutions that enhance the performance of science, health, and technology professionals, empowering them to make better decisions, deliver better care, and sometimes make groundbreaking discoveries that advance the boundaries of knowledge and human progress. Elsevier provides web-based, digital solutions — among them ScienceDirect, Scopus, Elsevier Research Intelligence and ClinicalKey — and publishes nearly 2,200 journals, including The Lancet and Cell, and over 25,000 book titles, including a number of iconic reference works.
The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group PLC, a world-leading provider of professional information solutions in the Science, Medical, Legal and Risk and Business sectors, which is jointly owned by Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. The ticker symbols are REN (Euronext Amsterdam), REL (London Stock Exchange), RUK and ENL (New York Stock Exchange).