Medical and public health coordination in HADR

1 · Establish roles and scope before coordinating care

Health liaisons and multisector teams practise building a decision-relevant service picture, confirming referrals and sustaining continuity through a flood CPX. Suggested prior reading covers foundations, Thai coordination, needs/SITREP and EOC. All scenario locations, codes, times, quantities and messages are fictional; use exercise data only.

Roi Et's 11 August 2026 releases describe PHEOC preparedness and participation in a flood TTX, providing provincial examples. They do not establish every incident's command structure. The DDPM 2021–2027 plan provides national/local mechanisms; real use requires checking the applicable plan, orders and responsible roles.

Original exercise agreement: H1 distinguishes health liaison, qualified referring/receiving clinicians, transport, WASH, shelter management, message approval and authorized international-assistance reception. Learners coordinate, check states and escalate. Clinical priority, fitness for transfer, care in transit and consent belong to the qualified health roles specified by the controller. Learners do not diagnose, triage, select medicines or change treatment.

2 · Map functioning services and people still unable to access them

WHO's Health Cluster Guide §§4.1–4.2 distinguishes health needs, service availability and actual functionality; §8.1 connects health with WASH, shelter and logistics. This lesson uses coordination concepts without asserting Health Cluster activation in Thailand or presenting its exercise as HeRAMS.

Original baseline, 09:00 Thailand time on one fictional day: flooding has interrupted clinic EX-H. The clinical role confirms six unique referral requests R01–R06 and supplies the priority order: R01/R02, then R03/R04, then R05/R06. Consent, documentation, clinical readiness and care in transit are confirmed exercise conditions. Preserve these decisions and return any change to the clinical role.

EX-R confirms capacity for four arrivals by 10:00 and accepts R01–R04 with named role/time confirmation. EX-S reports possible capacity for two but has not accepted R05/R06. TX1/TX2 each confirm one patient on one trip only in this round. EX-R's route is verified under exercise conditions. Nobody has departed or arrived at 09:00. ‘Four places’ describes the fictional service, not generic bed capacity or a staffing standard.

Keep continuity register C01 separate: provider EX-P confirms 12 continuing-care appointments at shelter EX-A for 10:30–12:00, conditional on water and power confirmation by 10:00. These people are not R01–R06. Learners do not select or adjust medication. H2 records location, service, constraints, confirmation channel, observation/receipt times, verifier and next check; H3 tracks C01 separately from referrals.

3 · Request, acceptance, departure and arrival require different evidence

WHO Medevac 2025 §4.2/Table 4 separates referring, coordination, transport and receiving roles, including acceptance and handover confirmation. WHO EMT 2021 §5.1.3 addresses formal handover. A mapped capacity figure alone does not confirm acceptance of a particular patient.

Project H2 definitions: ‘request’ identifies R01–R06; ‘pending acceptance’ lacks receiving confirmation; ‘accepted’ records request code, destination, accepting role, time and conditions; ‘departed’ has transport departure confirmation; ‘received/handover confirmed’ has destination acknowledgement. These are exercise labels, not government forms. Cumulative accepted/departed/received counts overlap and must not be added as unique people.

Exercise flow: clinical-role request → check service/receiver → named-case acceptance and conditions → transport/route checks with responsible roles → departure confirmation → arrival/handover confirmation → open-task follow-up. An unconfirmed step receives a checking owner and review time; changed conditions return to the clinical role. Coordinators do not independently change clinical priority.

4 · Conflicting capacity, a closed route and reconciled handover

Card 1, 09:10: EX-R administration messages capacity for six, conflicting with the receiver's confirmed four. At 09:12 the controller as receiving role confirms four and acceptance only for R01–R04; six included unstaffed space. Keep both reports and the correction reason in H2; neither add them to ten nor silently overwrite. The same card contains foreign EMT EX-I's outpatient-support offer, with no acceptance or tasking through the responsible channel.

Card 2, 09:15: EX-S accepts R05/R06, two arrivals by 10:00. At 09:16 the route role confirms EX-S's road closed, with no verified alternative. Retain the two acceptances and mark departure blocked; ask clinical/transport roles to review alternatives. R05 reports through the shelter liaison that phone contact is inaccessible. Assign an understandable liaison channel rather than treating an unanswered phone as refusal of care.

Card 2 also reports water interruption at EX-A. Power was confirmed at 09:05. WASH estimates water delivery at 09:35 but has not confirmed suitability/quantity for reopening; EX-P has not authorized C01 service resumption. Shelter management owns accessible space and communication with people waiting; logistics follows water delivery; health liaison seeks EX-P confirmation by 10:00. A water interruption alone does not establish an outbreak in this case.

Card 3, 09:40: TX1/TX2 confirm R01/R02 departed at 09:20; EX-R confirms arrival and handover at 09:40. Neither team has another trip before 10:00. R03/R04 have not departed; R05/R06 remain route-blocked. Water reached EX-A, but suitability/quantity and C01 reopening remain unconfirmed; no C01 appointment has been delivered. EX-I remains an unaccepted offer. Submit correction of the all-arrived rumour to the message-review role.

H4 reference at 09:45: 6 unique requests = 2 received/handover confirmed + 4 accepted but not departed + 0 pending acceptance. The four are R03/R04 awaiting transport (2) and R05/R06 awaiting a route alternative (2). Cumulative totals are accepted 6, departed 2, received 2; none are currently in transit. Do not add C01's 12 appointments to produce 18 referral patients. Hand over transport, route, C01/WASH, R05 communication and EX-I-offer tasks with owners/review times and receiving read-back. Reconfirm acceptance with destinations before the 10:00 receiving window expires; earlier acceptance is not indefinite.

5 · Sustain continuity and give people waiting a response channel

Original H3 work does not end at ‘coordinated’: give C01 a row for service/time window, 12 waiting appointments, water/power conditions, reopening confirmation owner and callback plan. The WASH row separates expected delivery, delivered water and responsible-role confirmation for reopening. Shelter checks cover space and a channel R05 can access. Transport records assign additional-trip checks rather than assuming a completed vehicle is immediately reusable.

Counterfactual discussion: if the responsible role confirms EX-S's road reopened at 09:45 but no additional transport is available, what changes and what remains? Update route evidence and request clinical/transport review; received remains 2 and four remain undeparted until new evidence. Learners do not replace professional clinical-risk decisions or substitute convenient contact for need.

H5 compares two communication options: circulating full names/health details widely to seek a quick match, or sharing task-specific aggregate requests while necessary individual information reaches care teams through restricted channels. Explain benefits, risks and how R05 stays included. Choose an evidenced message such as ‘2 of 6 referrals handed over; 4 not departed; C01 reopening pending’, with time and a response channel, without identifying individuals.

6 · Handle EMT offers through receiving-state mechanisms

SASOP Version 4.0, May 2025, Chapter VII places EMT coordination under the affected country's health ministry and distinguishes offers/requests, registration, authorization and tasking. It applies to civilian EMTs; Chapter VI covers military assets. Verify actual channels and designations rather than inferring that JOCCA, PHEOC or EMTCC is active from a handbook label.

Original task: record EX-I in H1/H4 as ‘offered, not accepted’. Identify the gap to check, service type, availability, self-sufficiency conditions, health/NDMO reception channel requiring confirmation and registration/authorization limits. Draft questions to simulated roles only. Do not contact real agencies, order travel or count the offer as available capacity. Military support adds relevant-channel and receiving-state checks; it does not establish professional authorization.

7 · Protect information, hand over and check individual evidence

WHO EMT 2021's Records and reporting and WHO Medevac 2025 §4.9 address confidential patient records and secure exchange. Withholding everything can also deprive care teams of necessary information. The exercise separates its coordination register from clinical documents; a code replacing a name does not automatically eliminate identification risk.

Original H2/H4 agreement: coordination uses exercise codes, states, destination, constraints, times and owners; simulated care roles receive necessary information through the controller's designated channel; shared public messages use aggregate/service status only. Include no real names, diagnoses, IDs or document images. Mark all artifacts ‘exercise only’ and share according to role need. Each learner visibly corrects an unnecessarily revealing message.

At 09:45, H4's receiver reads back ‘2 received/4 not departed’ and open work. If EX-R's six-place message persists, disclose the correction reason with source/time. H6 observers record who hears challenge, corrects messages and accepts/hands over work at card 1 and handover. Individually reflect on one flawed assumption, the evidence changing it, consequences for people waiting and a repeat check with owner/date. These project criteria use exercise/AAR concepts; they are not validated WHO criteria.

Group work does not replace individual evidence: each learner explains an H1 relationship, corrects an H2 entry, explains an H5 drawback of their own option and conducts an observed H4 task handover. The quiz supports understanding checks; it does not establish practical skill, ethics, lasting character or programme-level PLO attainment.