Objective To describe the overall level, internal differences, and functional distribution of emergency response capacity of all active members of the National Emergency Response Team for Acute Infectious Disease Control and Prevention in Tianjin Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the “Tianjin national team”), and provide evidence for the classified development of emergency response teams in China.

Methods In November 2025, a questionnaire survey was conducted in 146 members of the Tianjin national team to collect the information about their general demographic characteristics and 10 domains of emergency response capability, including team management, on-site command and coordination, rapid response, risk assessment, field investigation, laboratory testing, on-site response, risk communication, informatization, and logistics support. A score of 80.00% of the full score was used as the benchmark for qualification. One-sample t tests combined with Cohen’s d were used to describe the capability structure. K-means clustering (K=3) was performed after within-person centering of the 10 capability scores to identify capability profiles. Members scoring below 80.00% of the full score were defined as “priority targets for precise training,” and Logistic regression model was used to analyze associated factors.

Results A total of 146 questionnaires were distributed, and 138 valid questionnaires were returned (94.52%). The overall emergency response capability score of the Tianjin national team was 137.57±23.87, with a scoring rate of 81.40%±14.12%. The difference was not significant based on 80.00% benchmark (t=1.168, P=0.245). Six of the 10 capability domains—team management, on-site command and coordination, rapid response, risk assessment, on-site response, and logistics support—had scoring rates significantly higher than the benchmark, forming the core strength domains of the team (all P<0.01). The scoring rates for field investigation, risk communication, and informatization did not differ significantly from the benchmark (all P>0.05), indicating a stable development. The scoring rate for laboratory testing was only 62.00%±20.70%, and only 16 members were actually engaged in laboratory testing, suggesting a specialized and intensive pattern of capability development in this domain and identifying it as a key area for improvement in high-level infectious disease prevention and control. K-means clustering classified the 138 members into three capability profiles: all-round leading type (39 members, 28.26%), management-oriented type (75 members, 54.34%), and potential development type (24 members, 17.39%). Multivariable Logistic regression analysis showed that, after adjustment for other variables, rhe members of the logistics support group were more likely to be identified as priority targets for precise training compared with those in the professional response group (adjusted odds ratio=2.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.15−5.99, P=0.022).

Conclusion In 2025, the overall emergency response capability of the Tianjin national team reached the benchmark of qualification. Organizational management and emergency response capability were the most stable pillars of team performance, and inter-individual differences among team members could be classified as three capability profiles. Future team development may focus on consolidating existing strengths, improving specialized capabilities, implementing profile-based tiered training, and strengthening capability building for the logistics support group.