Outcomes of Academic-Based Geriatric Emergency Preparedness and Response (GEPR) Training for Medicine, Health, and Behavioral Professions

  • Melen R. McBrideEmail author
  • Arleen Johnson
  • Elizabeth M. Shiels
  • Judith L. Howe
  • Nina Tumosa
  • Judith A. Metcalf
  • Robert E. Roush
  • Joan Weiss


The progression of evaluation approaches shifting from counting training activities to measuring outcomes from evidence-based training is documented for six U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration-funded Geriatric Education Centers that have collaborated on geriatric emergency preparedness and response (GEPR) training and evaluation initiatives. The Kirkpatrick’s chain of impact evaluation model is used as the framework for describing modalities and outcomes at the reaction, learning, behavior, and results levels. The chapter provides examples of GEPR Collaborative training programs and resources that provide insight into evaluation approaches and their impact on the healthcare workforce, changes in geriatric/gerontological services, the ability to leverage support, development, and use of new resources and the provision of care for older persons. Outcomes are described that lead to lessons learned and recommendations for enhancing evaluation efforts. The importance of legislative and policy directives are explored relative to the creation of a national standard for culturally proficient preparedness and response to “all-hazards” disaster and governmental and community resilience as 17 million people with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) steadily grow with the aging baby boomer generation. In addition, the next generations and populations with culture-based survival and safety needs are aging as well. A case is made for using multimodal evaluation strategies to create standardized tools to measure GEPR training outcomes to meet Healthy People 2020 objectives and to strengthen preparedness and response skills of healthcare provider networks and populations of older adults from diverse communities across the nation.


Evaluation Preparedness Geriatrics/gerontology Disaster Policies/standards 



The GEPR Collaborative deeply appreciates the support from staff members of the six HRSA-funded GECs especially those who assisted with the evaluation process for every training on GEPR that were provided over the 10-year period covered in this chapter. Managing, analyzing, and summarizing a variety of databases require special skills, meticulous attention to details, patience, and a spirit of collaboration with the leadership of each Collaborative member. The assistance from Jennifer Griffith, M.A. (CNYGEC), Kathy Leonard (Gateway GEC), Andrew Pritchard, MPH, CCPH (UNE-MGEC), Gerard R. Barber, Ph.D. (OVARGEC), Marian Tzuang, MSW, Kala Mahendra, Ph.D. (SGEC), and Sandy Kay Tyson, Ph.D. (TCGEC) are invaluable to the success of putting together the training outcomes. It helped form a coherent and cohesive approach to share the multilayered stories of keeping diverse populations of older adults and their families safe, resilient, and prepared for major emergencies/disasters. Last but not least, thank you to the thousands of training participants who patiently completed the evaluation surveys and provided substantive feedback. The GEPR Collaborative used them to improve training curricula, develop need-based resources for preparedness, and keep a steady commitment to meet the challenges of educating IP healthcare and social service providers/responders.


  1. 1.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance [Internet]. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Health Resources and Services Administration; PPHF-2012 Geriatric Education Centers; 2012. GECs financed in part by 2012 Prevention and Public Health Funds PPHF-2012, No. 93.969; [about 2 screens]. Accessed 24 Feb 2013.
  2. 2. [Internet] S. 1754—105th Congress: Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998.; 1998. Accessed 2 Apr 2013.
  3. 3.
    Weiss J. A federal perspective on interprofessional education to practice [Internet]. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Valley State University; 2010 Jan 15. Accessed 8 Apr 2013.
  4. 4.
    Johnson, A., Howe, J., McBride, M., Palmisano, B., Perweiler, E., Roush, R., Sanders, M., Sherman, A., Tumosa, N., & Weiss, J. (2006). Bioterrorism and emergency preparedness in aging (BTEPA): HRSA-funded GEC collaboration for curricula and training. Gerontol Geriatr Educ, 26(4), 63–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Howe, J. (2011). The geriatric emergency preparedness and response (GEPR) collaborative: a successful and productive network. In J. Howe (Ed.), Geriatric mental health disaster and emergency preparedness (pp. 1–21). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perweiler E, Roush R, Nina Tumosa N. GECs work to advance mission on bioterrorism and emergency preparedness planning for an aging population. Aging Successfully [Internet]. 2004;14(3):2p. Accessed 12 Mar 2013.
  7. 7.
    Association of Schools for Public Health [Internet]. Washington, DC: 109th Congress of the United States of America, Second Session; 2006 Jan 3. S.3678 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act [51 pages]. Accessed 24 May 2013.
  8. 8.
    Office of Management and Budget [Internet]. Washington, DC. Government Performance Results Act of 1993; [about 3 screens]. Accessed 3 May 2013.
  9. 9.
    Dahiya, S., & Jha, A. (2011). Review of training evaluation. Int J Comp Sci Commun, 2(1), 11–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stufflebeam DL. A tool for applying the CIPP Model to assess long-term enterprises: intended for use by evaluators and evaluation clients/stakeholders, 2nd ed. [Internet] Michigan; 2007 Mar 17. Accessed 10 Mar 2013.
  11. 11.
    Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: the four levels (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler Publisher.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones SC. The Pretest Alternative for Program Impact Evaluation. [Internet] Measurement Resources Company; 2012 Dec. Accessed 30 May 2013.
  14. 14.
    Rodriguez E, Marquett R, Hinton L, McBride M, Gallagher-Thompson D. The impact of education on care practices: an exploratory study of whether ‘action plans’ influence health professionals’ behavior. J Int Psychogeriatr. 2010;2(Special Issue 6):897–908. doi:,  10.1017/S1041610210001031#_blank; Published online: 01 July 2010.
  15. 15.
    Roush, R. E., & Tyson, S. K. (2012). Geriatric emergency preparedness and response workshops: evaluation of knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and self-efficacy of participants. Disaster Med Public Health Prep, 6(4), 385–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci, 7, 466–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Topno H. Evaluation of training and development: an analysis of various models. IOSR J Bus Manage [Internet]. 2012;5(2):16–22, 7p. Accessed 27 Feb 2013.
  18. 18.
    Tumosa N. Hurricane Katrina, Emergency preparedness: lessons learned in 2005. Aging Successfully [Internet]. 2006;16(1):3p. Accessed 7 Apr 2013.
  19. 19.
    Bales, C., & Tumosa, N. (2009). Minimizing the impact of complex emergencies on nutrition and geriatric health: planning for prevention is key. In C. W. Bales & C. S. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of clinical nutrition and aging (2nd ed., pp. 635–54). New York: Humana Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jiang, L. P., Yao, L., Bond, E. F., Wang, Y. L., & Huang, L. Q. (2011). Risk perceptions and preparedness of typhoon disaster on coastal inhabitants in China. Am J Disaster Med, 6(2), 119–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coulston, J. E., & Deeny, P. (2010). Prior exposure to major flooding increases individual preparedness in high-risk populations. Prehosp Disaster Med, 25(4), 289–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Department of Homeland Security [Internet]. Washington, DC: Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-8: National Preparedness; 2011 Mar. Accessed 30 Mar 2013.
  23. 23.
    Ibrahim, N., Rampal, L., Jamil, Z., & Zain, A. M. (2012). Effectiveness of peer-led education on knowledge, attitude and risk behavior practices related to HIV among students at a Malaysian public university—a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med, 55(5), 505–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.09.003. Epub 2012 Sep 11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Riddell, M. A., Renwick, C., Wolfe, R., Colgan, S., Dunbar, J., Hagger, V., Absetz, P., & Oldenburg, B. F. (2012). Cluster randomized controlled trial of a peer support program for people with diabetes: study protocol for the Australasian peers for progress study. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 843. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-843 [Epub ahead of print].PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Association for School of Public Health [Internet]. Washington, DC: Public Health Preparedness Core Competency, FINAL Model Version 1.0; 2010 Dec. Accessed 8 Feb 2013.
  26. 26.
    Tumosa N. Hurricane Katrina, Emergency preparedness: lessons learned in 2005. Aging Successfully [Internet]. 2006;16(1):3p. Accessed 11 May 2013.
  27. 27.
    Gotsch AR, Keck CW, Spencer HC. Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes (KSAs) for the Public Health Preparedness and Response Core Competency Model [Internet]. Washington, DC: Centers for Disease and Prevention; Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response; Associations of Schools of Public Health; 2012 Sep 12. Accessed 23 Apr 2013.
  28. 28.
    Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Federal Emergency Management Administration [Internet]. Washington, DC. A whole community approach to emergency management: principles, themes, and pathways for action; 2011 Dec. FDOC 104-008-1/December 2011. Accessed 22 Jan 2013.
  30. 30.
    Tumosa, N. (2010). Self-help tools for older persons and their caregivers. In J. A. Toner, T. M. Mierswa, & J. L. Howe (Eds.), Geriatric mental health disaster and emergency preparedness (pp. 141–58). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frecthling J, Sharp L. User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed-Method Evaluations. [Internet]. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of research, Evaluation and Communication; 1997 Aug. NSF, RED, 94-52965. Accessed 4 Apr 2013.
  32. 32.
    Anderson G. Chronic care: making the case for ongoing care. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2010. Accessed 6 May 2013.
  33. 33.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [Internet]. Washington, DC: Multiple chronic conditions—a strategic framework: optimum health and quality of life for individuals with multiple chronic conditions; 2010. Accessed 29 May 2013.
  34. 34.
    Wagner, E. (1998). Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract., 1, 2–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zinovieff M [with support from Rotem A.]. Review and analysis of training impact models, and proposed measures to support a United Nations Fellowships evaluation frameworks. [Internet]. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization Department of Human Resources for Health, UN Task Force on Impact Assessment of Fellowships; 2008. Accessed 26 Mar 2013.
  36. 36.
    Cascio, W. F. (1989). Using utility analysis to assess training outcomes. In I. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 63–88). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cascio, W. F. (1991). Costing human resources: the financial impact of behaviors in organizations. Boston: PWS-Kent.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., & Normand, J. (1990). A new approach for utility analysis. J Appl Psychol, 75, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bruner, J. (2002). Making stories: law, literature, life. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schank, R. (1990). Tell me a story: narrative and intelligence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Collander, B., Green, B., Millo, Y., Shamloo, C., Donnellan, J., & DeAtley, C. (2008). Development of an “all-hazards” hospital disaster preparedness training course utilizing multi-modality teaching. Prehosp Disaster Med, 23(1), 63–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid [Internet]. HCAPHS, Hospital consumer assessment of healthcare providers and system. HCAHPS fact sheet. and Accessed 19 May 2013.
  43. 43.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid [Internet]. Centers for medicare and medicaid: long term care, minimum data set (MDS). Accessed 11 May 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melen R. McBride
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arleen Johnson
    • 2
  • Elizabeth M. Shiels
    • 3
  • Judith L. Howe
    • 4
  • Nina Tumosa
    • 5
  • Judith A. Metcalf
    • 6
  • Robert E. Roush
    • 7
  • Joan Weiss
    • 8
  1. 1.Stanford Geriatric Education CenterStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.College of Public HealthUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.Kent School of Social WorkUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine and Department of Preventive MedicineMount Sinai School of MedicineBronxUSA
  5. 5.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of GeriatricsSt. Louis University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  6. 6.School of Community and Population HealthUniversity of New EnglandPortlandUSA
  7. 7.Department of Medicine, Section of GeriatricsBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  8. 8.Department of Health and Human Services, Division of NursingHealth Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health ProfessionsRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations