Study Summary
The objective of the study was to investigate whether the collaboration that takes place in crisis management works well. Collaboration among the various parties involved is an important component of crisis management. Crisis management includes public relations (managing the image of the crisis) as well as managing the crisis itself. Specific issues investigated include: (1) how well collaboration worked to provide a coherent picture to the public; and (2) how well collaboration worked in making coordinated decisions, including reaching a common understanding of the situation (e.g., what happened, level of seriousness, actions taken, and actions planned). The study focused on the health sector, particularly on collaboration among individuals who did not have crisis management as a primary mission.
The study highlighted a number of specific areas regarding collaboration. These areas were: (1) horizontal (intersectoral) collaboration (collaboration between sectors and individuals); (2) vertical (internal) collaboration within the sectors among individuals, legal, and the regulatory framework for collaboration (see Appendix); (3) plans and planning for collaboration; (4) collaboration with trade and industry; (5) tools for collaboration; and (6) effects and costs of collaboration.
The study included retrospective evaluation and analysis of the influenza pandemic in 2009.2 In addition, a 2011 nuclear accident scenario exercise was prospectively followed. Twenty-one interviews of personnel from ministries and from national and regional authorities were conducted; relevant literature and reports were evaluated and included in the study.3-Reference Kulling, Birnbaum, Murray and Rockenschaub7
The study conclusions and recommendations are universal and relevant for most crisis management participants. Measures that may improve horizontal and vertical cooperation, clarify collaboration with trade and industry, develop and make the tools for collaboration more effective, and provide perspective on the effects and costs of collaboration were identified. The study recommendations also cover education on collaboration, the application of experience and lessons learned from exercises and past events, information coordination, supporting technology and improving analysis.
Study Conclusions
Horizontal (Intersectoral) Collaboration
• Goals and objectives of collaboration need to be clarified;
• Knowledge of each other's organization, responsibilities, and functions is essential;
• Clear division of responsibilities between individuals needs to be identified;
• Functional interface between individuals is necessary;
• Common procedures should be available as much as possible;
• Networks (and personal contacts) formed before the crisis are, not is invaluable;
• Personal contacts during a crisis must be formalized;
• Information officers/communicators need guaranteed access to experts;
• Coordination of information for public relations is important;
• “Associates” to participate passively in conferences/meetings (to keep the organization informed) should be identified in the planning phase;
• Those responsible for collaboration usually need to have the authority to make decisions;
• Collaboration between county councils and municipalities, and among municipalities, needs to be improved.
Vertical (Internal) Collaboration
• Vertical (internal) collaboration is less well-developed and less efficient than horizontal (intersectoral) collaboration, partly due to ignorance, as well as to territorial thinking and behavior;
• Internal cooperation must be built into the system;
• A special crisis management team should report directly to management;
• The entire organization needs to understand the crisis management team and its function;
• During a crisis, the entire organization should be kept informed of ongoing activities;
• Redundancy and consistency of personnel are necessary to ensure the accessibility of both expertise and personnel;
• The Human Resources Department often needs to be involved in the crisis management team.
Collaboration with Trade and Industry
• The impact of the crisis on trade and industry should be analyzed;
• An inventory of trade and industry resources should be conducted during the crisis;
• Collaboration with trade and industry needs to be studied and developed further.
Tools for Collaboration
• Meetings have a tendency to take a disproportionate amount of time;
• Meetings should be well-justified, well-planned, and brief;
• Telephone conferences are most effective, supplemented by physical meetings;
• Continuous bilateral videoconferencing is effective;
• Tools/systems used in crisis management should be used in everyday life and be as simple as possible;
• The latest technology for telephone conferences should be used;
• A formal structure should be developed to facilitate individuals and organizations learning from experience, and gaining knowledge on how to improve actions in future crisis.
Effects and Costs of Collaboration
• Collaboration is essential for crisis management, and worth the price;
• The main cost of collaboration is staff costs;
• Common functions (such as call centers or crisis information web sites) are important but costly.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Vertical (Internal) Collaboration
• The special crisis management team should report directly to management in order to secure efficient operation, justify mandates, and guarantee an overview of the actions of the organization;
• Clear routines and procedures should be developed (responsibilities, authorities, duties, etc.);
• The entire organization should be trained in crisis management (understanding the function, conditions, mandates, organization);
• Everyone in the organization should receive continuously updated information during a crisis.
Recommendation 2: Education in Collaboration
National organizations such as the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) should ensure that special training in collaboration is conducted, including training on collaboration with trade and industry.
Recommendation 3: Follow-Up and Evaluation
• National organizations such as the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) should be given the mandate to promote or to follow-up on experiences and lessons learned from exercises and events to facilitate improvement of individuals’ and organizations’ management of future crises;
• Each organization should develop a formal structure to facilitate learning from experience, and increasing knowledge to improve actions in a future crisis.
Recommendation 4: Web-Based Information Support
• Web-based information support (such as Sweden's Webbaserat informationssystem (WIS), a national information system that can be used to exchange information during a crisis) should be developed in such a way that it can be used for everyday functions and national planning efforts.
Recommendation 5: Teleconferencing
National organizations such as the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) should provide a teleconferencing system with computer support to all participants in the crisis management system.
Recommendation 6: Coordination of Information
Arrangements, skills, and other factors that allow coordination of information (a precondition for coordinating public relations efforts during a crisis), should be developed further.
Abbreviations:
- none
Appendix
Legal and Regulatory Framework of the European Union in Crisis Management within Public Health
1. European Union. Article 152 (Public Health article) in Title XIII Public Health in the EU Treaty. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12002E152:EN:HTML. Published December 24, 2002. Accessed January 2, 2012.
2. Network on communicable diseases. Council decision 2119/1998 Early Warning and Response. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998D2119:EN:HTML.PublishedOctober3,1998. Accessed January 2, 2012.
3. Early Warning and Response System (EWRS) Council decision 97/2000 Early Warning and Response. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2000D0057:20090714:EN:PDF.UpdatedJuly14,2009. Accessed January 2, 2012.
4. ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). Council regulation 851/2004. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=387317:cs&lang=en&list=387317:cs,&pos=1&page=1&nbl=1&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte.PublishedApril21,2004. Accessed January 2, 2012.
5. Presidency conclusions of 15 November 2001 on bioterrorism—informal cooperation and coordination body by Health Ministers and the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/DOC.68699.htm. Accessed January 2, 2012.
6. Council conclusions of 22 February 2007 on Health Security Committee—Transitional prolongation of the HSC mandate and extension of Terms of reference for the HSC; request for long-term solution for the EU framework on health security. 2786th Council Meeting. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/92911.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2012.
7. Council conclusions of 16 December 2008 on health security (after informal Health Ministers meeting Angers, 8-9 September 2008)—Provide HSC with legal basis and Legislative initiative to adopt the status of HSC to the health challenges. 2916th Council meeting. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/lsa/104770.pdf and http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/104835.pdf and http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st16/st16515.en08.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2012.
8. Council conclusions on lessons learned from the A/H1N1 pandemic—health security in the European Union of 13 September 2010—present in 2011 a proposal for health security and further prolong the current HSC mandate. 3032nd Council meeting. http://ec.europa.eu/health/preparedness_response/docs/council_lessonsh1n1_en.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2012.
Legal and Regulatory Framework of the European Union in Crisis Management within Civil Protection
1. Council Decision 2007/162/EC Euratom establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument, OJ L71, p. 9. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:071:0009:01:EN:HTML. Published March 10, 2007. Accessed January 2, 2012.
2. Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (recast), OJ L 314, p.9. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:314:0009:0019:en:PDF. Published December 1, 2007. Accessed January 2, 2012.
3. Commission Decision of 20 December 2007 amending Decision 2004/277/EC, Euratom as regards rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom establishing a Community civil protection mechanism, as amended by Commission Decision of 20 December 2007. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004D0277:EN:HTML and http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007D0779(01):EN:NOT. Published March 25, 2004 and November 8, 2007. Accessed January 2, 2012.
Legal and Regulatory Framework of the European Union in Crisis Management within Radiation Emergencies
1. EURATOM 96/29 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0029:SV:HTML. Published June 29, 1996. Accessed January 2, 2012.
2. EURATOM 87/600 on community arrangement on early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31987D0600:EN:HTML.PublishedDecember30,1987. Accessed January 2, 2012.
3. EURATOM 2000/473 on the application of article 36 of the Euratom Treaty concerning the monitoring of levels of radioactivity in the environment for the purpose of assessing the exposure of the population as a whole. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/00473_en.pdf. Published June 8, 2000. Accessed January 2, 2012.
4. Legal and Governmental Infrastructure for Nuclear, Radiation, Radioactive Waste and Transport Safety (GS-R-1). http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1093_scr.pdf.PublishedDecember2000. Accessed January 2, 2012.
5. Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency (GS-R-2). http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1133_scr.pdf. Published November 2002. Accessed January 2, 2012.
Other Legal Frameworks
1. Nordic Public Health Preparedness Agreement of June 14, 2002. http://www.nordhels.org/Global/Nordhels/avtal/Nordiskt%20h%c3%a4lsoberedskapsavtal%20-%20engelska.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2012.
2. World Health Organization. International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005). http://www.who.int/ihr/en/. Published 2008. Accessed January 2, 2012.
