Introduction to Homeland Security and Emergency Management for Local Officials, 2015

The purpose of the Introduction to Homeland Security and Emergency Management for Local Officials is to provide you with information regarding this system. Inside, you will learn about local and state emergency management and homeland security; the phases of homeland security and emergency management; hazards that affect the state; comprehensive planning requirements; emergency declarations; available state and federal assistance; and other important topics that will help you become more versed in homeland security and emergency management in Iowa.

Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management 2015 Annual Report

This annual report highlights the many programs and initiatives with which the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division is involved.

Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division Annual Report, FY2014

Annual report of The Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.

Iowa Strategy for Homeland Security and Emergency Management 2015-2017, October 1, 2014

Address sustainability in all efforts. Sustainability should be at the core of all levels of homeland security and emergency management effort in Iowa. Capabilities need to be built for the long term, and without a sustainability plan in place, projects can quickly deplete uncertain levels of funding. Utilize an all-hazards methodology. Developing capabilities that are effective during a variety of disaster and emergency scenarios represents sound planning and resource management. Enhance capabilities through joint planning, training and exercise. Effective capabilities developed through coordinated planning efforts and an ongoing joint training and exercising program to ensure substantiate of prepared response. Utilize a collaborative approach to build capability. We will utilize whatever partnerships are necessary to build capability in the most effective manner possible. Regional partnerships have been, and will continue to be, in the forefront of the State of Iowa’s efforts to build and enhance capability. Enhance statewide capabilities. Whenever possible, we will identify and augment existing resources to provide statewide capability during a disaster or terrorist attack. Awareness, outreach and education. Open communication is critical to the success of any initiative. All projects implemented will have awareness, education and outreach components to ensure that all stakeholders are informed as to their responsibilities, capabilities and access. Information sharing and a common operating picture. The timely exchange of critical/actionable information is imperative to the success of every operation. The identification of a common operating picture allows decision makers to make informed decisions based on a unified understanding of the events around them.

Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division, Performance Plan, FY2015

Agency Performance Plan

Report on a Review of the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Department, E911 Cost Data for the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2014

Report on a Review of the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Department, E911 Cost Data for the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2014

Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2015 Enhanced 911 Annual Report, January 14, 2016

The Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEMD) submits this enhanced 911 (E911) annual report to the Iowa General Assembly’s standing committees on government oversight pursuant to Iowa Code § 34A.7A (3) (a). This section of the Code requires the E911 program manager to advise the General Assembly of the status of E911 wireline and wireless implementation and operations, the distribution of surcharge receipts, and an accounting of revenue and expenses of the E911 program.

Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Annul Report, SFY2014,

Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Annul Report

Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2014 Enhanced 911 Annual Report, January 15, 2015

The Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEMD) submits this enhanced 911 (E911) annual report to the Iowa General Assembly’s standing committees on government oversight pursuant to Iowa Code § 34A.7A (3) (a). This section of the Code requires the E911 program manager to advise the General Assembly of the status of E911 wireline and wireless implementation and operations, the distribution of surcharge receipts, and an accounting of revenue and expenses of the E911 program.

Introduction to Homeland Security and Emergency Management for Local Officials, 2015

the purpose of the Introduction to Homeland Security and Emergency Management for Local Officials is to provide information regarding the system. You will learn about local and state emergency management; hazards that affect the state; comprehensive planning requirements; emergency declarations; available state and federal assistance and other important topics that will help you become more versed in homeland security and emergency management in Iowa.

Annual Report: Division of Acute Disease Prevention, Emergency Response, and Environmental Health 2015 April 25, 2016

This report is a result of the ADPER & EH division management team retreat that was held on July 30 and 31, 2015 where a gap was identified in our communication with customers, especially when it came to sharing information about planning efforts. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive look at what ADPER & EH has accomplished in the past year as well as what we are working on for the future. It also serves as an annual informational resource for stakeholders, local partners, policy makers and the general public.

Social and medical vulnerability factors of frequent users at the emergency department: a case-control study

BACKGROUND: Up to 5% of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) four or more times within a 12 month period represent 21% of total ED visits. In this study we sought to characterize social and medical vulnerability factors of ED frequent users (FUs) and to explore if these factors hold simultaneously. METHODS: We performed a case-control study at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Patients over 18 years presenting to the ED at least once within the study period (April 2008 toMarch 2009) were included. FUs were defined as patients with four or more ED visits within the previous 12 months. Outcome data were extracted from medical records of the first ED attendance within the study period. Outcomes included basic demographics and social variables, ED admission diagnosis, somatic and psychiatric days hospitalized over 12 months, and having a primary care physician.We calculated the percentage of FUs and non-FUs having at least one social and one medical vulnerability factor. The four chosen social factors included: unemployed and/or dependence on government welfare, institutionalized and/or without fixed residence, either separated, divorced or widowed, and under guardianship. The fourmedical vulnerability factors were: ≥6 somatic days hospitalized, ≥1 psychiatric days hospitalized, ≥5 clinical departments used (all three factors measured over 12 months), and ED admission diagnosis of alcohol and/or drug abuse. Univariate and multivariate logistical regression analyses allowed comparison of two JGIM ABSTRACTS S391 random samples of 354 FUs and 354 non-FUs (statistical power 0.9, alpha 0.05 for all outcomes except gender, country of birth, and insurance type). RESULTS: FUs accounted for 7.7% of ED patients and 24.9% of ED visits. Univariate logistic regression showed that FUs were older (mean age 49.8 vs. 45.2 yrs, p=0.003),more often separated and/or divorced (17.5%vs. 13.9%, p=0.029) or widowed (13.8% vs. 8.8%, p=0.029), and either unemployed or dependent on government welfare (31.3% vs. 13.3%, p<0.001), compared to non-FUs. FUs cumulated more days hospitalized over 12 months (mean number of somatic days per patient 1.0 vs. 0.3, p<0.001; mean number of psychiatric days per patient 0.12 vs. 0.03, p<0.001). The two groups were similar regarding gender distribution (females 51.7% vs. 48.3%). The multivariate linear regression model was based on the six most significant factors identified by univariate analysis The model showed that FUs had more social problems, as they were more likely to be institutionalized or not have a fixed residence (OR 4.62; 95% CI, 1.65 to 12.93), and to be unemployed or dependent on government welfare (OR 2.03; 95% CI, 1.31 to 3.14) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to need medical care, as indicated by involvement of≥5 clinical departments over 12 months (OR 6.2; 95%CI, 3.74 to 10.15), having an ED admission diagnosis of substance abuse (OR 3.23; 95% CI, 1.23 to 8.46) and having a primary care physician (OR 1.70;95%CI, 1.13 to 2.56); however, they were less likely to present with an admission diagnosis of injury (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.00) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to combine at least one social with one medical vulnerability factor (38.4% vs. 12.1%, OR 7.74; 95% CI 5.03 to 11.93). CONCLUSIONS: FUs were more likely than non-FUs to have social and medical vulnerability factors and to have multiple factors in combination.