Gar Risk Assessment: Fill & Download for Free

A single disaster may wipe out all or large parts of business capital of small enterprises, in turn affecting large companies relying on local suppliers. While not specifically focusing on stock markets, you might find the 2013 edition of the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction interesting... "From Shared Risk to Shared Value: the Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction" - GAR 2013

Early warning systems (EWS) have been an important factor in reducing the risk of death and injury from disasters triggered by natural hazards related to weather, climate, and water. Strengthened monitoring and assessment of natural hazards and improved forecasting and warning services have contributed to this progress. Just as important, people increasingly understand the risks posed by natural hazards and the measures they should take to protect themselves and their families. Advances in socio‐economic development, renewed investment in disaster risk reduction (DRR), and national and international actions to implement the priorities of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030 (SFDRR) over the past decade are among other factors that made this progress possible. These gains need to be sustained in the post‐2015 era.Furthermore, the cascading impacts of natural hazards and climate change and the growing complexity of human society increasingly magnify the risks and vulnerabilities that people face. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030 (SFDRR) adopted at the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR), held in Sendai, Japan, from 14 to 18 March 2015 called for enhancing and strengthening Multi‐hazard Early Warning systems (MHEWS), to develop and invest in regional multi‐hazard early warning mechanisms, and to achieve the global target for MHEWS. MHEWS inform the people of the potential impacts of impending natural hazards, the risks on their lives and livelihoods, and the action they should take. To be effective, this approach entails multi‐stakeholder cooperation and coordination between and among national science, disaster‐risk management agencies, and other relevant stakeholders. It also needs to be combined with actions to make communities more disaster resilient so that they can respond more effectively to natural hazards.Recent Formation of Early Warning SystemEarly warning systems (EWS) have received increasing international consideration in the past decade, as highlighted by the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030 (SFDRR) and three International Early Warning Conferences hosted by the Government of Germany, the appreciation of EWS during the G8 summit in 2005 and in various United Nations General Assembly Resolutions, and the recent natural hazard events such as storm surges and tsunamis that underlined the importance of EWS in saving lives and reducing losses.In line with the international efforts to promote early warning, the World Conference for Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in 2005 adopted plans that put in place the International Early Warning Programme (IEWP) first proposed at the Second International Conference on Early Warning (EWC II) in 2003 in Bonn, Germany. As an implementation mechanism, the Platform for the Promotion of Early Warning (PPEW) was launched in 2004 and remained operational until 2008.Recent Advances in Early Warning SystemsIn line with the Priority for Action 2 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015−2030 (SFDRR) , regions and countries across the world have made significant progress in strengthening multi‐hazard, end‐to‐end, people‐centred EWS over the past 10 years. Progress has been evident in the development of observation and monitoring systems and the strengthening of communication and information on risks, as part of the overall efforts to strengthen disaster resilience. Today, EWS are established and operational in many countries of the world, focusing on a variety of natural hazards and utilizing available scientific knowledge and modern ICT.Challenges related to Early Warning SystemsAccording to SFDRR, Notwithstanding these advances in EWS in the past decade, many countries still have not benefited from them as much as they could have, and significant gaps remain, especially with the “last mile” of EWS.A key challenge has been in reaching the most remote and vulnerable population with timely, meaningful, and actionable warning information. Several gaps persist due to weak coordination among the actors and agencies concerned, feeble public awareness and participation as well as insufficient political commitment. Additional efforts are needed to institutionalize and strengthen multi‐hazard, end‐to‐end, people‐centred EWS for all communities, and to deliver warnings from one authoritative source or “voice” at the national level.Call for Multi‐Hazard Early Warning SystemsEWS have often been developed to target specific hazards. In some cases, EWS are operated for multiple hazards, particularly in the context of hydro-meteorological phenomena. It is important to consider a holistic and integrated multi‐hazard approach to EWS as a strategy to streamline such systems, to apply lessons learned from their operations, and to contribute effectively to DRR. It is also important for warning messages to originate from an official authoritative source and communicated through broadened channels of dissemination, including the social media.Furthermore, States agreed on a global target for DRR specifically on MHEWS by SFDRR (i.e. Target 7: Substantially increase the availability of and access to MHEWS and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030.International Network for Multi‐Hazard Early Warning SystemsOne of the major outcomes of the Working Session on Early Warning during WCDRR, was the endorsement of the proposal for the establishment of an International Network for Multi‐Hazard Early Warning Systems (IN‐MHEWS), a multi‐stakeholder partnership under SFDRR that will foster cooperation, collaboration, and networking in strengthening MHEWS.Building on their respective programmes and activities and institutional mechanisms for cooperation on EWS, the IN‐MHEWS partners will work together to promote a holistic and integrated approach to early warning. This innovative approach supports MHEWS and services and fosters multi‐ stakeholder partnerships in building the capacity of national science and disaster risk management agencies and the resilience of communities to natural hazards.ObjectivesThe key objectives of IN‐MHEWS described in SFDRR are:a)To identify effective strategies and actions to promote and strengthen MHEWS in support of the implementation of SFDRR, including the global DRR target for MHEWS, and the United Nations Plan of Action on Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience;b)To facilitate the sharing of best practices and making available to governments and key stakeholders expertise and policy‐relevant guidance to enhance MHEWS and related services, as an integral component of their national strategy for DRR, climate change adaptation (CCA), and building community resilience;c)To promote synergies between and among stakeholders at national, regional and international levels and those in charge of operating EWS at the national and local levels, and the strengthening of user‐interface platforms as a contribution to the DRR Priority of the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS); and,d)To advocate the usefulness of MHEWS in regional and international platforms and among key stakeholders, including donors, and across all sectors.Initial Activities and OutputsAs a first step, the convening of organizational and planning meetings in 2015 to discuss the collaborative arrangements and activities of IN‐MHEWS is proposed. The potential priority outputs of SFDRR, IN‐MHEWS include the following:a)A common priority agenda and plan of action of IN‐MHEWS;b)A global review of MHEWS to be published every four years;c)Guidelines for reviewing and measuring progress in MHEWS in line with the priorities of the post‐2015 framework for DRR and the global DRR target on MHEWS;d)Development of guidelines on multi‐stakeholder partnerships for MHEWS at international, national and community levels;e)Stocktaking and baseline study on the state of hazard and risk analysis and the roles and capacities of United Nations agencies;f)Contribution to the development of a catalogue‐and‐inventory system for extreme natural hazard events and related loss‐and‐damage database;g)Annual background reports as contribution to key publications on loss and damage and risk, such as the GARs, the WMO‐CRED‐UCL Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate, and Water Extremes, etc.; andh)Regular publication of bulletins that promulgates articles, case studies, lessons learned, emerging issues on MHEWS, as well as related policy developments in countries.2.4 CoordinationIt is proposed that IN‐MHEWS will have a Steering Group, comprised of representatives of the Network Partners, and will constitute Expert Groups to support the collaborative activities of IN‐ MHEWS in response to the requirements of countries.2.5 Network PartnersThe networking partnership is open to all stakeholders committed to sustaining the achievements of countries in implementing HFA Priority 2, and to promoting a holistic, integrated, and multi‐hazard approach to early warning in accordance with the SFDRR. Network partners could include government agencies, international organizations, NGOs, academia, media, and providers and users of early warning services.Currently, the following stakeholders have expressed intention to collaborate and to contribute to the work of IN‐MHEWS as network partners: WMO, WHO, UNDP, UNESCO‐IOC, UNESCAP, UNISDR, UNOOSA/UN‐SPIDER, IFRC, ITU, GFZ (Helmholtz‐Centre Potsdam – GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences), and GIZ (German Development Corporation).

When a new patient arrives at a psychological clinic, a lot of the procedures will depend on LOCAL regulations, the location of a clinic (in a hospital, in the community, in a school, for example), and certain external factors like whether the client is under someone else’s guardianship because they are a child, or a court has declared them unable to manage their own affairs.The first is screening them at the door for infectious diseases. Covid-19 receives the attention now, but traditionally, we have ALWAYS had some form of screening; chickenpox was the common highly infectious disease people most often brought to our waiting room!We make certain they are in the correct place for the right reason. Through an internal communications mishap, the front desk of the medical center was giving directions to the Covid-19 test center at our work that lead them to the psychiatric clinic front door. We also have people who believe they have a microchip implanted in their brain to control their thoughts, and are coming to the clinic to have it surgically removed. Yes, we likely are the correct place for them, but no, we don’t do exploratory surgery for thought-control chips.The identity of the patient is ascertained, and their contact information obtained. The includes the physical place of residence (not a post office box), phone number, and email address. We explore payment options at that point, copying payment information such as insurance ID cards. They are offered consents for treatment that explain that we are a treatment facility which also performs teaching and research activities, and that they are consenting ONLY for a general evaluation and certain exchanges of information at that point. It notes the limits of confidentiality; we are mandated to provide a very high level of protection of their privacy, but government regulators can (and do) inspect us regularly. We also exchange information with payment programs such as commercial or government health insurance providers. Mechanisms for filing complaints are described, and notification that we must by law accommodate for any disabilities, language barriers, or other protected status is provided in writing. We can obtain interpreters for MANY languages, and have online interpretation services for hundreds including Dari, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Urdu, Hindi, Arabic, Creole, Korean (very common where I am), Cantonese, Mandarin, Yoruba, Spanish (the second most common language here behind English), etc.They are introduced, respectful of confidentiality, to the intake clinician. What we WON’T do is stand in the door of the lobby and shout, “IS ALI BAHRAMI HERE FOR THE EVALUATION OF HIS DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, PSYCHOSIS, AND DESIRE TO FRIGHTEN SMALL CHILDREN???” We are discrete; patients receive a number on arrival, and we ask, “Does someone have number 7?” Once in a place a bit more private, we will ask, “Mr. Bahrami? Ali Bahrami?”We QUICKLY review intake screening information. If this were an emergency room, someone would have approached after the initial paperwork to discover generally why you are coming. Our clinic does this in advance by phone. We confirm name, contact information, etc. I like to get a phonetic transcription of the name of patients, as in a large US East Coast inner city, I often meet people whose native language (Lorma, for example) is unfamiliar to me, or people whose names are made up by their parents. People are often grateful for this, and one patient with a Slavic name which is very complex for most English speakers thanks me every time I see her for sounding it and spelling it correctly.I am somewhat constrained by an intake form provided by the medical system. It starts with the identifying information, and then asks for a sentence or two of why they are at the clinic. Next is a request for “one thing” that would make there life better.We look at living situation, household, job and career status, and hours of availability. Does the client have responsibilities for child or elder care that impact their ability to come to treatment? Are they SAFE in their home?They are asked to describe what they are good at, one thing they are most proud of, and then we launch into a history of the problem that brought them in.A history of past treatment, inpatient and outpatient is conducted. Medications that have been tried are listed, and response.Family history is collected. What mental health conditions exist in the extended family? Substance abuse?There is a developmental history. What was their pregnancy, early childhood, and school age years like?We do a screening for pain, nutritional status, and physical health. Do they have any tooth problems that interfere with their ability to eat? Are they in pain? How is appetite? Do they have any major medical problems like cancer or a history of heart attacks?There is a review of substance abuse screen, and a review of traumatic events. We ask about gambling addiction as well; the university medical center where I am has a clinical and research initiative on gambling addiction, and someone with such a condition could be invited to join a study of best practices to address gambling addiction.We do a suicide risk assessment, and a review of cultural, religious, or racial issues of importance to our clients. We must accommodate these to the fullest extent possible.I do a psychiatric review of systems borrowed from family medicine: Depression, Personality Disorders, Somatic Concerns and Panic, Anxiety, Substance Abuse, Cognitive functioning, and Psychosis.Then there is a mental status exam; orientation to person, place, time, reason for being here; short- and long-term memory, attention and concentration, fund of knowledge, abstraction, mood (how a person feels inside), affect (what they APPEAR to feel like), gait, appearance, eye contact. Speech is evaluated in a general way. We ask about suicidal and homicidal ideation, auditory or visual hallucinations, other perceptual phenomena; delusions are explored (people are generally not aware that delusions ARE delusions, although they may tell you, “I still kind of think I might be the Messiah, though I know that sounds silly”).I like to use a lot of screening instruments. I have the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th edition, and the Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence, 3rd edition if I think it is important to screen for intelligence. I recently saw a gentleman who had dropped out of school, and ten years later, frustrated his family by not even searching for a job. His IQ was approximated by my measures as 29. Nobody knew he had an intellectual disability, but that explained everything about his lifelong presentation. I didn’t diagnose intellectual disability based on what are really just screen tools, but I knew where to refer him for more sophisticated evaluation and guidance.I use the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, revised (CESD-R); the UCLA trauma screen as well as other measures of PTSD; the Screen for Adult Anxiety Related Disorders (SCAARED); I bought the Gilliam Autism Rating Scales, 3rd edition (GARS-3); and I am about to upgrade my ability to screen for dementia with the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS; the whole kit with all four screens is a bit pricey!). I use other measures as indicated.I then formulate the case as I see it to the client, and propose something; sometimes, no further services are indicated. In some cases (as recently as this past week), I walk my client downstairs to the emergency room for hospitalization. MOST OFTEN, I schedule them to see a psychiatric physician soon, and schedule them to start psychosocial therapy with me. I usually describe two or three evidence-based approaches to their situation as I see it.After they leave, I write the whole thing up. That can take a while, and after I finish THIS, I will finish writing up an evaluation I did yesterday.The actual time in the clinic should take 75 minutes, but as you can infer, especially if I do a lot of extra screening, it can run 90 minutes or more.