It is easily scalable so the number of POD opened can be commensurate with the actual incident. It is open to the entire population (i.e., there are no restrictions on who may obtain prophylaxis from a POD). Several exercises in the United States have tested POD models and many jurisdictions use exercise data to justify their POD efficiency, as required under the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA).14 Of all the alternate modes of dispensing, the traditional POD has undergone the most frequent and rigorous testing, even though criticisms have been leveled at the testing for failing to: include set-up times; include elements of uncertainty; include the interaction with security or law enforcement; use full security staffing; and test coordination between POD, the Receipt, Store, and Stage (RSS) Warehouse and the Command Center (p. 2). In sum, a discussion about the POD strategy is definitely relevant to the present conversation; however, I think more context is needed to help involve your peers in the dialogue. Furthermore, I think a group of local hospitals could adapt some/all of the POD model as they develop a cooperative disaster plan, but the scope of their planning would have to extend beyond prophylaxis/medication distribution to cover components like contingency electrical power, triage protocols, incident response, staff roles and responsibilities, surgery, food and water provisions, etc. (American Nurses Assn., 2008). What are your thoughts on this Eunice? Do you think the POD strategy is relevant to hospital disaster planning? What kinds of changes should be made to adapt POD to work on the local/regional level? Please elaborate how this applies to the topic discussion. Also, be sure that you are discussing the acronyms before using them