Challenges in managing, sustaining, and assessing closed point of dispensing sites: Findings from a qualitative study
Most U.S. public health agencies rely upon closed points of dispensing (PODs) to aid in medical countermeasure (MCM) distribution. However, few studies have focused on how to assess closed POD preparedness and none have examined best practices for managing sites once they have been recruited. This s...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271037 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | e0271037 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Rebmann, Terri Foerst, Kyle Charney, Rachel L Mazzara, Rachel L Sandcork, Jessica |
description | Most U.S. public health agencies rely upon closed points of dispensing (PODs) to aid in medical countermeasure (MCM) distribution. However, few studies have focused on how to assess closed POD preparedness and none have examined best practices for managing sites once they have been recruited. This study involved qualitative interviews with U.S. disaster planners to elucidate their approaches and challenges to managing, sustaining, and assessing existing closed POD sites. In all, 16 disaster planners participated. Common management practices included frequent communication with sites, providing formal and informal training, and assisting with POD exercises. Very few jurisdictions reported doing formal assessments of closed POD sites. The largest challenges identified were staff turnover and keeping sites engaged, sometimes leading to sites voluntarily withdrawing or needing to be removed from being a closed POD. Frequent communication and building partnerships with closed POD site personnel were recommended to maintain and sustain existing sites. Formal and informal assessments will provide assurance of deployment readiness. Closed POD management is a challenging, but essential process to ensure readiness to deploy. Practices outlined by this study can be implemented to enhance closed POD network management at other jurisdictions. This should increase the ability to distribute MCMs rapidly during a future event, contributing to stronger community resilience. Public health officials should continue expanding and improving closed POD networks to enable MCM delivery and minimize morbidity and mortality related to mass casualty events. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0271037 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2695866266</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A711807513</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d9ae076c97ff4f51b721e4c0ba378a3f</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A711807513</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9d7ccf17e29f2d17a8977a99b1599c3b51ecff987c7700e0a25e4e8ffc1a0fb73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk99rFDEQxxdRbK3-B6IBQRS8M9ncbjY-CKVYLRQK_noNc9nJXspect3JFvvfm95dy530QfKQzOQz32QmmaJ4KfhUSCU-XsZxCNBPVzHglJdKcKkeFYdCy3JSl1w-3lkfFM-ILjmvZFPXT4sDWWmeeXlYjCcL6HsMHRLzgS0hQOdD94HRSAl8WK8htAyIkCibzPaRsGWr6ENi0bHW0wrDeot8QvrETn1os0nMDXHJgF2N0PsEyV8jozS2N8-LJw56whfb-aj4dfrl58m3yfnF17OT4_OJrXWZJrpV1jqhsNSubIWCRisFWs9FpbWV80qgdU43yirFOXIoK5xh45wVwN1cyaPi9UZ3le9sthUjU9a6yoUo6zoTZxuijXBpVoNfwnBjInizdsShMzAkb3s0rQbkqrZaOTdzlZirUuDM8jlI1YB0Wevz9rRxvsTWYkgD9Hui-zvBL0wXr42WUpbNLAu82woM8WpESmbpyWLfQ8A4ru9dc65VXWb0zT_ow9ltqQ5yAj64mM-1t6LmWAnRcFUJmanpA1QeLS69zd_L-ezfC3i_F5CZhH9SByOROfvx_f_Zi9_77NsddoHQpwXFfkw-BtoHZxvQDpFoQHdfZMHNbXfcVcPcdofZdkcOe7X7QPdBd-0g_wKIEwvo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2695866266</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Challenges in managing, sustaining, and assessing closed point of dispensing sites: Findings from a qualitative study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Rebmann, Terri ; Foerst, Kyle ; Charney, Rachel L ; Mazzara, Rachel L ; Sandcork, Jessica</creator><contributor>Rovers, John</contributor><creatorcontrib>Rebmann, Terri ; Foerst, Kyle ; Charney, Rachel L ; Mazzara, Rachel L ; Sandcork, Jessica ; Rovers, John</creatorcontrib><description>Most U.S. public health agencies rely upon closed points of dispensing (PODs) to aid in medical countermeasure (MCM) distribution. However, few studies have focused on how to assess closed POD preparedness and none have examined best practices for managing sites once they have been recruited. This study involved qualitative interviews with U.S. disaster planners to elucidate their approaches and challenges to managing, sustaining, and assessing existing closed POD sites. In all, 16 disaster planners participated. Common management practices included frequent communication with sites, providing formal and informal training, and assisting with POD exercises. Very few jurisdictions reported doing formal assessments of closed POD sites. The largest challenges identified were staff turnover and keeping sites engaged, sometimes leading to sites voluntarily withdrawing or needing to be removed from being a closed POD. Frequent communication and building partnerships with closed POD site personnel were recommended to maintain and sustain existing sites. Formal and informal assessments will provide assurance of deployment readiness. Closed POD management is a challenging, but essential process to ensure readiness to deploy. Practices outlined by this study can be implemented to enhance closed POD network management at other jurisdictions. This should increase the ability to distribute MCMs rapidly during a future event, contributing to stronger community resilience. Public health officials should continue expanding and improving closed POD networks to enable MCM delivery and minimize morbidity and mortality related to mass casualty events.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271037</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35901033</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Assessments ; Best practice ; Best practices ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Communication ; COVID-19 ; Disaster management ; Disaster Planning ; Disasters ; Dispensing ; Emergency management ; Environmental aspects ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Interviews ; Jurisdiction ; Long term health care ; Management ; Mass Casualty Incidents ; Medical Countermeasures ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Morbidity ; Public Health ; Qualitative Research ; United States</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271037</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9d7ccf17e29f2d17a8977a99b1599c3b51ecff987c7700e0a25e4e8ffc1a0fb73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9d7ccf17e29f2d17a8977a99b1599c3b51ecff987c7700e0a25e4e8ffc1a0fb73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1338-8804</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9333284/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9333284/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35901033$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Rovers, John</contributor><creatorcontrib>Rebmann, Terri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foerst, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Charney, Rachel L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazzara, Rachel L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandcork, Jessica</creatorcontrib><title>Challenges in managing, sustaining, and assessing closed point of dispensing sites: Findings from a qualitative study</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Most U.S. public health agencies rely upon closed points of dispensing (PODs) to aid in medical countermeasure (MCM) distribution. However, few studies have focused on how to assess closed POD preparedness and none have examined best practices for managing sites once they have been recruited. This study involved qualitative interviews with U.S. disaster planners to elucidate their approaches and challenges to managing, sustaining, and assessing existing closed POD sites. In all, 16 disaster planners participated. Common management practices included frequent communication with sites, providing formal and informal training, and assisting with POD exercises. Very few jurisdictions reported doing formal assessments of closed POD sites. The largest challenges identified were staff turnover and keeping sites engaged, sometimes leading to sites voluntarily withdrawing or needing to be removed from being a closed POD. Frequent communication and building partnerships with closed POD site personnel were recommended to maintain and sustain existing sites. Formal and informal assessments will provide assurance of deployment readiness. Closed POD management is a challenging, but essential process to ensure readiness to deploy. Practices outlined by this study can be implemented to enhance closed POD network management at other jurisdictions. This should increase the ability to distribute MCMs rapidly during a future event, contributing to stronger community resilience. Public health officials should continue expanding and improving closed POD networks to enable MCM delivery and minimize morbidity and mortality related to mass casualty events.</description><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>Best practice</subject><subject>Best practices</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>Disaster management</subject><subject>Disaster Planning</subject><subject>Disasters</subject><subject>Dispensing</subject><subject>Emergency management</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Long term health care</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Mass Casualty Incidents</subject><subject>Medical Countermeasures</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk99rFDEQxxdRbK3-B6IBQRS8M9ncbjY-CKVYLRQK_noNc9nJXspect3JFvvfm95dy530QfKQzOQz32QmmaJ4KfhUSCU-XsZxCNBPVzHglJdKcKkeFYdCy3JSl1w-3lkfFM-ILjmvZFPXT4sDWWmeeXlYjCcL6HsMHRLzgS0hQOdD94HRSAl8WK8htAyIkCibzPaRsGWr6ENi0bHW0wrDeot8QvrETn1os0nMDXHJgF2N0PsEyV8jozS2N8-LJw56whfb-aj4dfrl58m3yfnF17OT4_OJrXWZJrpV1jqhsNSubIWCRisFWs9FpbWV80qgdU43yirFOXIoK5xh45wVwN1cyaPi9UZ3le9sthUjU9a6yoUo6zoTZxuijXBpVoNfwnBjInizdsShMzAkb3s0rQbkqrZaOTdzlZirUuDM8jlI1YB0Wevz9rRxvsTWYkgD9Hui-zvBL0wXr42WUpbNLAu82woM8WpESmbpyWLfQ8A4ru9dc65VXWb0zT_ow9ltqQ5yAj64mM-1t6LmWAnRcFUJmanpA1QeLS69zd_L-ezfC3i_F5CZhH9SByOROfvx_f_Zi9_77NsddoHQpwXFfkw-BtoHZxvQDpFoQHdfZMHNbXfcVcPcdofZdkcOe7X7QPdBd-0g_wKIEwvo</recordid><startdate>20220728</startdate><enddate>20220728</enddate><creator>Rebmann, Terri</creator><creator>Foerst, Kyle</creator><creator>Charney, Rachel L</creator><creator>Mazzara, Rachel L</creator><creator>Sandcork, Jessica</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1338-8804</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220728</creationdate><title>Challenges in managing, sustaining, and assessing closed point of dispensing sites: Findings from a qualitative study</title><author>Rebmann, Terri ; Foerst, Kyle ; Charney, Rachel L ; Mazzara, Rachel L ; Sandcork, Jessica</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9d7ccf17e29f2d17a8977a99b1599c3b51ecff987c7700e0a25e4e8ffc1a0fb73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>Best practice</topic><topic>Best practices</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>Disaster management</topic><topic>Disaster Planning</topic><topic>Disasters</topic><topic>Dispensing</topic><topic>Emergency management</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Long term health care</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Mass Casualty Incidents</topic><topic>Medical Countermeasures</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rebmann, Terri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foerst, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Charney, Rachel L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazzara, Rachel L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandcork, Jessica</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rebmann, Terri</au><au>Foerst, Kyle</au><au>Charney, Rachel L</au><au>Mazzara, Rachel L</au><au>Sandcork, Jessica</au><au>Rovers, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Challenges in managing, sustaining, and assessing closed point of dispensing sites: Findings from a qualitative study</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2022-07-28</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0271037</spage><pages>e0271037-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Most U.S. public health agencies rely upon closed points of dispensing (PODs) to aid in medical countermeasure (MCM) distribution. However, few studies have focused on how to assess closed POD preparedness and none have examined best practices for managing sites once they have been recruited. This study involved qualitative interviews with U.S. disaster planners to elucidate their approaches and challenges to managing, sustaining, and assessing existing closed POD sites. In all, 16 disaster planners participated. Common management practices included frequent communication with sites, providing formal and informal training, and assisting with POD exercises. Very few jurisdictions reported doing formal assessments of closed POD sites. The largest challenges identified were staff turnover and keeping sites engaged, sometimes leading to sites voluntarily withdrawing or needing to be removed from being a closed POD. Frequent communication and building partnerships with closed POD site personnel were recommended to maintain and sustain existing sites. Formal and informal assessments will provide assurance of deployment readiness. Closed POD management is a challenging, but essential process to ensure readiness to deploy. Practices outlined by this study can be implemented to enhance closed POD network management at other jurisdictions. This should increase the ability to distribute MCMs rapidly during a future event, contributing to stronger community resilience. Public health officials should continue expanding and improving closed POD networks to enable MCM delivery and minimize morbidity and mortality related to mass casualty events.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>35901033</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0271037</doi><tpages>e0271037</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1338-8804</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271037 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2695866266 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Assessments Best practice Best practices Biology and Life Sciences Communication COVID-19 Disaster management Disaster Planning Disasters Dispensing Emergency management Environmental aspects Health aspects Humans Interviews Jurisdiction Long term health care Management Mass Casualty Incidents Medical Countermeasures Medicine and Health Sciences Methods Morbidity Public Health Qualitative Research United States |
title | Challenges in managing, sustaining, and assessing closed point of dispensing sites: Findings from a qualitative study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T06%3A37%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Challenges%20in%20managing,%20sustaining,%20and%20assessing%20closed%20point%20of%20dispensing%20sites:%20Findings%20from%20a%20qualitative%20study&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Rebmann,%20Terri&rft.date=2022-07-28&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0271037&rft.pages=e0271037-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0271037&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA711807513%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2695866266&rft_id=info:pmid/35901033&rft_galeid=A711807513&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_d9ae076c97ff4f51b721e4c0ba378a3f&rfr_iscdi=true |