Abstract The high elder care death toll of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, pushed the federally mandated Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program (LTCOP) into the unsought and unforeseen realm of disaster preparedness. This new role was an extension of the LTCOP’s historic resident’s rights investigative case advocacy. To assess if, how, and to what extent local ombudsmen adapted to this new function, 102 local LTCOP leaders completed a telephone survey based on the CMS Emergency Planning Checklist. This assessed their own and their programs’: (a) readiness to help facilities reduce disaster threats to residents, (b) familiarity with relevant disaster laws, rules, and resources; (c) readiness to help residents through the disaster cycle; and (d) levels of disaster training and/or their plans to provide such training to their staff and LTC stakeholders. Forty-two respondents (41.13%) had experienced a public disaster but over half or those responding (n = 56, 54.90%) felt fairly to somewhat prepared to help in a public crisis. After being ready to work away from their office during a crisis ( x ¯ $\overline{x}$ = 4.14, SD = 1.00) respondents felt most prepared “to assist during nursing home emergency closure and evacuation” ( x ¯ $\overline{x}$ = 3.86, SD = 1.09). t-tests revealed that respondents with a disaster experience were significantly more prepared in all assessed dimensions than as those without disaster experience. The study highlights the training needs of ombudsmen in high risk areas to better prepare them for disaster mitigation in nursing homes.

中文翻译：

---

社区长期护理申诉专员计划灾难援助：准备好了，愿意做还是愿意做？

摘要2005年卡特里娜飓风造成的高龄护理死亡人数将联邦授权的长期护理监察员计划（LTCOP）推向了备灾领域，这是无法预料和无法预料的领域。这个新角色是LTCOP历史居民权利调查案件主张的延伸。为了评估本地监察员是否，如何以及在多大程度上适应了这项新功能，有102位当地LTCOP领导根据CMS应急计划清单完成了电话调查。这评估了他们自己和他们的计划：（a）准备帮助设施减少对居民的灾难威胁，（b）熟悉相关的灾难法律，规则和资源；（c）准备在灾难周期中帮助居民；（d）灾害培训的水平和/或其计划向其员工和长期护理相关方提供此类培训。有42位受访者（41.13％）遭受了公共灾难，但超过一半的受访者（n = 56，54.90％）感到相当乐意为帮助解决公共危机做好准备。在危机中准备离开办公室工作时（x¯\ overline {x} $ = 4.14，SD = 1.00），受访者感到最准备“在养老院紧急关闭和疏散期间提供帮助”（x¯\ overline {x} \ overline {x} $ = 3.86，SD = 1.09）。t检验显示，具有灾难经历的受访者在所有评估方面比没有灾难经历的受访者更加准备充分。这项研究强调了高风险地区监察员的培训需求，以更好地为他们准备减轻养老院的灾难。90％的人表示相当乐意为公共危机做准备。在危机中准备离开办公室工作时（x¯\ overline {x} $ = 4.14，SD = 1.00），受访者感到最准备“在养老院紧急关闭和疏散期间提供帮助”（x¯\ overline {x} \ overline {x} $ = 3.86，SD = 1.09）。t检验显示，具有灾难经历的受访者在所有评估方面比没有灾难经历的受访者更加准备充分。这项研究强调了高风险地区监察员的培训需求，以更好地为他们准备减轻养老院的灾难。90％的人表示相当乐意为公共危机做准备。在危机中准备离开办公室工作时（x¯\ overline {x} $ = 4.14，SD = 1.00），受访者感到最准备“在养老院紧急关闭和疏散期间提供帮助”（x¯\ overline {x} \ overline {x} $ = 3.86，SD = 1.09）。t检验显示，具有灾难经历的受访者在所有评估方面比没有灾难经历的受访者更加准备充分。这项研究强调了高风险地区监察员的培训需求，以更好地为他们准备减轻养老院的灾难。00）受访者感到最准备“在养老院紧急关闭和疏散过程中提供帮助”（x¯$ \ overline {x} $ = 3.86，SD = 1.09）。t检验显示，具有灾难经历的受访者在所有评估方面比没有灾难经历的受访者更加准备充分。这项研究强调了高风险地区监察员的培训需求，以更好地为他们准备减轻养老院的灾难。00）受访者感到最准备“在养老院紧急关闭和疏散过程中提供帮助”（x¯\ overline {x} $ = 3.86，SD = 1.09）。t检验显示，具有灾难经历的受访者在所有评估方面比没有灾难经历的受访者更加准备充分。这项研究强调了高风险地区监察员的培训需求，以更好地为他们准备减轻养老院的灾难。