Worldwide, the numbers of people living with chronic conditions are rapidly on the rise. Chronic illnesses are enduring and often cannot be cured, requiring a strategy for long term management and intervention to prevent further exacerbation. Globally, there has been an increase in interventions using telecommunications technologies to aid patients in their home setting to manage chronic illnesses. Such interventions have often been delivered by nurses. The purpose of this research was to assess whether a particular intervention that had been successfully implemented in the United Kingdom could also be implemented in Canterbury. In particular, this research assessed the perspectives of Canterbury based practice nurses and district nurses. The findings suggest that a majority of both district and practice nurses did not view the service as compatible with their current work situation. Existing workload and concerns over funding of the proposed service were identified as potential barriers. However, the service was perceived as potentially beneficial for some, with the elderly based in rural areas, or patients with chronic mental health needs identified as more likely to benefit than others. Practice nurses expressed strong views on who should deliver such services. Given that it was identified that practice nurses already have in-depth knowledge of their patients’ health, while valuing the strong relationships established with their communities, it was suggested that patients would most benefit from locally based nurses to deliver any community based health services in the future. It was also found that teletriaging is currently widely used by practice nurses across Canterbury to meet a range of health needs, including chronic mental health needs. This suggests that the scope of teletriaging in community health and its potential and full implications are currently not well understood in New Zealand. Significant events, such as the Christchurch earthquakes indicate the potential role of teletriaging in addressing mental health issues, thereby reducing the chronic health burden in the community.
Six months after the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake, a Mw 6.2 Christchurch (Lyttelton) aftershock struck Christchurch on the 22 February 2011. This earthquake was centred approximately 10km south-east of the Christchurch CBD at a shallow depth of 5km, resulting in intense seismic shaking within the Christchurch central business district (CBD). Unlike the 4 Sept earthquake when limited-to-moderate damage was observed in engineered reinforced concrete (RC) buildings [35], in the 22 February event a high number of RC Buildings in the Christchurch CBD (16.2 % out of 833) were severely damaged. There were 182 fatalities, 135 of which were the unfortunate consequences of the complete collapse of two mid-rise RC buildings. This paper describes immediate observations of damage to RC buildings in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Some preliminary lessons are highlighted and discussed in light of the observed performance of the RC building stock. Damage statistics and typical damage patterns are presented for various configurations and lateral resisting systems. Data was collated predominantly from first-hand post-earthquake reconnaissance observations by the authors, complemented with detailed assessment of the structural drawings of critical buildings and the observed behaviour. Overall, the 22 February 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch earthquake was a particularly severe test for both modern seismically-designed and existing non-ductile RC buildings. The sequence of earthquakes since the 4 Sept 2010, particularly the 22 Feb event has confirmed old lessons and brought to life new critical ones, highlighting some urgent action required to remedy structural deficiencies in both existing and “modern” buildings. Given the major social and economic impact of the earthquakes to a country with strong seismic engineering tradition, no doubt some aspects of the seismic design will be improved based on the lessons from Christchurch. The bar needs to and can be raised, starting with a strong endorsement of new damage-resisting, whilst cost-efficient, technologies as well as the strict enforcement, including financial incentives, of active policies for the seismic retrofit of existing buildings at a national scale.
On 22 February 2011, Canterbury and its largest city Christchurch experienced its second major earthquake within six months. The region is facing major economic and organisational challenges in the aftermath of these events. Approximately 25% of all buildings in the Christchurch CBD have been “red tagged” or deemed unsafe to enter. The New Zealand Treasury estimates that the combined cost of the February earthquake and the September earthquake is approximately NZ$15 billion[2]. This paper examines the national and regional economic climate prior to the event, discusses the immediate economic implications of this event, and the challenges and opportunities faced by organisations affected by this event. In order to facilitate recovery of the Christchurch area, organisations must adjust to a new norm; finding ways not only to continue functioning, but to grow in the months and years following these earthquakes. Some organisations relocated within days to areas that have been less affected by the earthquakes. Others are taking advantage of government subsidised aid packages to help retain their employees until they can make long-term decisions about the future of their organisation. This paper is framed as a “report from the field” in order to provide insight into the early recovery scenario as it applies to organisations affected by the February 2011 earthquake. It is intended both to inform and facilitate discussion about how organisations can and should pursue recovery in Canterbury, and how organisations can become more resilient in the face of the next crisis.
The extent of liquefaction in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch (Aranui, Bexley, Avonside, Avonhead and Dallington) from the February 22 2011 Earthquake resulted in extensive damage to in-ground waste water pipe systems. This caused a huge demand for portable toilets (or port-a-loos) and companies were importing them from outside Canterbury and in some instances from Australia. However, because they were deemed “assets of importance” under legislation, their allocation had to be coordinated by Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM). Consequently, companies supplying them had to ignore requests from residents, businesses and rest homes; and commitments to large events outside of the city such as the Hamilton 400 V8 Supercars and the Pasifika Festival in Auckland were impacted. Frustrations started to show as neighbourhoods questioned the equity of the port-a-loos distribution. The Prime Minister was reported as reassuring citizens in the eastern suburbs in the first week of March that1 “a report about the distribution of port-a-loos and chemical toilets shows allocation has been fair. Key said he has asked Civil Defence about the distribution process and where the toilets been sent. He said there aren’t enough for the scale of the event but that is quickly being rectified and the need for toilets is being reassessed all the time.” Nonetheless, there still remained a deep sense of frustration and exclusion over the equity of the port-a-loos distribution. This study took the simple approach of mapping where those port-a-loos were on 11-12 March for several areas in the eastern suburbs and this suggested that their distribution was not equitable and was not well done. It reviews the predictive tools available for estimating damage to waste water pipes and asks the question could this situation have been better planned so that pot-a-loo locations could have been better prioritised? And finally it reviews the integral roles of communication and monitoring as part of disaster management strategy. The impression from this study is that other New Zealand urban centres could or would also be at risk and that work is need to developed more rational management approaches for disaster planning.
In the aftermath of the 22 February 2011 earthquake, the Natural Hazards Research Platform (NHRP) initiated a series of Short Term Recovery Projects (STRP) aimed at facilitating and supporting the recovery of Christchurch from the earthquake impacts. This report presents the outcomes of STRP 6: Impacts of Liquefaction on Pipe Networks, which focused on the impacts of liquefaction on the potable water and wastewater systems of Christchurch. The project was a collaborative effort of NHRP researchers with expertise in liquefaction, CCC personnel managing and designing the systems and a geotechnical practitioner with experience/expertise in Christchurch soils and seismic geotechnics.
Canta Magazine Volume 82 Issue 6 from 4 May 2011.
Canta Magazine Volume 82 Issue 0 from 14 March 2011.
Canta Magazine Volume 82 Issue 1 from 23 March 2011.
Canta Magazine Volume 82 Issue 11 from 13 June 2011.
Canta Magazine Volume 82 Issue 5 20 from April 2011.
Page 6 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 8 March 2011.
Page 11 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 18 March 2011.
A PDF copy of The Star newspaper, published on Wednesday 30 March 2011.
Page 13 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 11 March 2011.
Page 9 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 19 March 2011.
Page 15 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 19 March 2011.
Page 27 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 16 March 2011.
Page 12 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 21 March 2011.
Page 3 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 18 April 2011.
Page 22 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 26 March 2011.
Page 12 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Tuesday 29 March 2011.
Page 17 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 7 March 2011.
Page 6 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Monday 14 March 2011.
Page 9 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 18 June 2011.
A PDF copy of The Star newspaper, published on Wednesday 22 June 2011.
Page 15 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 21 April 2011.
Page 7 of Section A of the Christchurch edition of the Christchurch Press, published on Thursday 26 May 2011.
Page 7 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Wednesday 15 June 2011.
Page 18 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Friday 17 June 2011.
Page 21 of Section A of the Christchurch Press, published on Saturday 18 June 2011.