Lessons learned
Pandemic planning will serve for future events

January 8, 2010

By Colleen MacPherson

While the H1N1 virus may not have caused the kind of wide–spread illness initially predicted, the process of preparing for a potential pandemic was a beneficial learning experience for the University of Saskatchewan.

“We were fortunate that this particular event was moderate in nature,” said Nowell Seaman, manager of Risk Management and Insurance Services. “I can’t think of a better test. It helped us develop plans and identify our vulnerabilities but it was also an opportunity for people to see how the university responds in a crisis.”

Seaman, who heads the university’s crisis operations team, said the institution’s main message throughout the fall and early winter was the same one broadcast across the country – infection control through personal hygiene (hand–washing, coughing into elbows and staying home if unwell). In an effort to help stem the spread of the influenza, the U of S also hosted a Saskatoon Health Region immunization clinic, which saw some 5,400 people receive the H1N1 shot. In the end, infection rates on campus mirrored those in the community, he said.

Tracking rates of illness on campus was challenging “because we don’t take attendance,” said Seaman, either of students or of overall employee absenteeism. To track illness in students, the answer came in identifying classes in which attendance is mandatory “or where there is a low rate of tolerance for absenteeism,” he said. By establishing an attendance baseline in those classes last fall and then asking instructors to report student numbers, the university was able to monitor infection levels. Seaman said additional data was collected from the Student Health Centre, on-campus daycares and student residences. “This gave us a picture to help identify trends which were consistent with what was being reported by public health.“

Pandemic preparations also included encouraging colleges and major administrative units to prepare detailed plans outlining priorities and contingencies in case of high rates of employee illness. “The plans were generic in nature so they will be effective for dealing with other kinds of infections, and we now know where vulnerabilities lie.”

One of those vulnerabilities, said Seaman, is in dealing with disruptions to academic programs and exams. “We realized we need to develop some processes … and clearer lines of roles and responsibilities at each level of the university. We will debrief in January with all of the college and unit planners and we have some questions of them. What else do we need to do to be prepared for other events like a massive fire or long-term utility disruptions? There is always the possibility we could have something more serious (than H1N1) so where do we go from here?”

One positive outcome from the H1N1 preparation process is that in the future, more energy can be applied to execution than to planning, he said.

Although two waves of H1N1 have already passed, the virus continues to be a concern on campus, and throughout the community. “We’re being told a third wave early in 2010 is certainly a possibility, but that’s dependent on the success of the current vaccination program. And we also have to be prepared for the seasonal flu.”