Public health, emergency and disaster management, and vulnerability and resilience science are three areas where there is a divide between important stakeholders in the risk management and risk reduction professions in the United States. Nationally mandated hazard mitigation strategies frequently ignore socioeconomic analyses, place a heavy emphasis on physical exposure, and neglect public health considerations. Research is still lacking on how vulnerability studies, risk assessments, public health risk assessments, and healthcare systems interact. The case study from the Idaho public health sector in this article provides an objective, scientifically informed, and data-driven process that advances the status of risk assessments by incorporating stakeholder input and feedback.

This increase in risk calls for a more comprehensive strategy for lowering community vulnerability and boosting community resilience to risks. Political pitfalls, resource and capability constraints, a reactive mindset, and a dearth of scientific and data-driven methods and approaches have all afflicted emergency and disaster management in the United States. Key participants in the disciplines of public health, emergency and disaster management, and vulnerability and resilience science are also not communicating well with one another. It's interesting to notice that a crucial global risk reduction paper reiterates this claim on a worldwide scale.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction outlines the global disaster management agenda. It has already been determined that collaboration is urgently needed to improve public health resilience. Ineffective collaboration efforts hinder efficient mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery despite the significance of all three disciplines throughout the disaster cycle. The historical, political, and cultural makeup of the United States is to blame for this lack of coordination and integration. These fields all developed in unique ways, with varying political contexts, theoretical underpinnings, and practical applications.

The intersection of vulnerability studies, risk assessments, public health risk assessments, and healthcare systems is not well studied at the moment. In contrast to public health, which is defined as state, local, territorial, and tribal public health departments, healthcare systems are described as trauma centres, hospitals, and other non-governmental organisations and corporations that offer medical attention and care to individuals. Testa et al. evaluated the viability of incorporating several mechanistic, geographic, and measurement models in risk assessments with an emphasis on public health, building on this recognised literature gap. The authors discovered that these frameworks can enhance public health preparedness and mitigation planning, which supports the study's methodology.

In order to analyse the numerous hazards to communities and health systems in the State of Idaho, the Idaho PHJRA used a multi-phase mixed methods approach, which is what this study aims to do initially. Risk assessments lacking intellectual value and rigour frequently result in redundant analysis, loss of use of data or methodologies, lack of plan integration, and inefficient or ineffective mitigation and adaptation strategies, according to prior research in the hazards vulnerability sector.

Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Therapeutics is an open access, peer reviewed journal committed to publishing articles on all aspects of the advances in clinical research in Nephrology, Diabetic nephropathy, Pediatric nephrology, Renal physiology, Transplant medicine, Immunosuppression management, Intensive care nephrology, Ischemic nephropathy, Perioperative medicine etc.

You may submit manuscripts online at: clinnephrol@emedscholar.com

Regards,

Journal Coordinator

Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Therapeutics