Assessment of Closed Point-of-Dispensing (POD) Preparedness in St. Louis County, Missouri, 2012-2016

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 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.

Approaches, Successes, and Challenges in Recruiting Closed Points of Dispensing Sites: A Qualitative Study

Closed points of dispensing (PODs) are an essential component of local public health preparedness programs because most local public health agencies lack the infrastructure to distribute medical countermeasures to all community members in a short period of time through open PODs alone. However, no study has examined closed POD recruitment strategies or approaches to determine best practices, such as how to select or recruit an agency, group, or business to become a closed POD site once a potential partner has been identified. We conducted qualitative interviews with US disaster planners to identify their approaches and challenges to recruiting closed POD sites. In total, 16 disaster planners participated. Recruitment considerations related to selecting sites, paperwork needed, and challenges faced in recruiting closed POD sites. Important selection criteria for sites included size, agencies or businesses with vulnerable or confined populations who lack access or ability to get to or through open POD sites, and critical infrastructure organizations. Major challenges to recruitment included difficulty convincing sites of closed POD importance, obstacles with recruiting sites that can administer mass vaccination, and fear of legal repercussions related to medical countermeasure dispensing or administration. Closed POD recruitment is a frequently challenging but highly necessary process both before and during the current pandemic. These recommendations can be used by other disaster planners intending to start or expand their closed POD network. Public health agencies should continue working toward improved distribution plans for medical countermeasures, both oral and vaccine, to minimize morbidity and mortality during mass casualty events.