After-action review of the 2009-10 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak Response: Ohio's Public Health System's performance

Community interventions for pandemic preparedness: A scoping review of pandemic preparedness lessons from HIV, COVID-19, and other public health emergencies of international concern

Community action is broadly recognised as central to comprehensive and effective system responses to pandemics. However, there is uncertainty about how and where communities can be best supported to bolster long-term resilience and preparedness. We applied a typology of community interventions (Community Informing, Consulting, Involving, Collaborating or Empowering-or CICICE) to cover the diverse range of interventions identified across the literature and used this to structure a scoping review addressing three linked topics: (i) how CICICE interventions have been understood and applied in the literature on epidemic and pandemic preparedness; (ii) the spectrum of interventions that have been implemented to strengthen CICICE and (iii) what evidence is available on their effectiveness in influencing preparedness for current and future emergencies. We drew on peer-reviewed and grey literature from the HIV (from 2000) and COVID-19 pandemics and recent public health emergencies of international concern (from 2008), identified through systematic searches in MEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Collaboration database, supplemented by keyword-structured searches in GoogleScholar and websites of relevant global health organisations. Following screening and extraction, key themes were identified using a combined inductive/deductive approach. 130 papers met the criteria for inclusion. Interventions for preparedness were identified across the spectrum of CICICE. Most work on COVID-19 focused on informing and consulting rather than capacity building and empowerment. The literature on HIV was more likely to report interventions emphasising human rights perspectives and empowerment. There was little robust evidence on the role of CICICE interventions in building preparedness. Evidence of effect was most robust for multi-component interventions for HIV prevention and control. Much of the reporting focused on intermediate outcomes, including measures of health service utilisation. We put forward a series of recommendations to help address evidence shortfalls, including clarifying definitions, organising and stratifying interventions by several parameters and strengthening evaluation methods for CICICE.

Staff and Veteran Perspectives on Residential Treatment Programs' Responses to COVID-19: A Qualitative Study Guided by the WHO's After Action Review Framework

Healthcare must rapidly and systematically learn from earlier COVID-19 responses to prepare for future crises. This is critical for VA's Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs (RRTPs), offering 24/7 care to Veterans for behavioral health and/or homelessness. We adapted the World Health Organization's After Action Review (AAR) to conduct semi-structured small-group discussions with staff from two RRTPs and Veterans who received RRTP care during COVID-19, to examine COVID-19's impact on these programs. Six thematic categories emerged through qualitative analysis (participant-checked and contextualized with additional input from program leadership), representing participants' recommendations including: Keep RRTPs open (especially when alternative programs are inaccessible), convey reasons for COVID-19 precautions and programming changes to Veterans, separate recovery-oriented programming from COVID-19-related information-sharing, ensure Wi-Fi availability for telehealth and communication, provide technology training during orientation, and establish safe procedures for off-site appointments. AAR is easily applicable for organizations to debrief and learn from past experiences.

Reaching Consensus on Politicized Topics: A Convening of Public Health Professionals to Discuss Appropriate Abortion Activities for US Health Departments

CONTEXT

Public health professionals, particularly those in state and local health departments, do not always have clear understandings of their roles related to politically controversial public health topics. A process of consensus development among public health professionals that considers the best available evidence may be able to guide decision making and lay out an appropriate course of action.

APPROACH

In May 2020, a group of maternal and child health and family planning professionals working in health departments, representatives of schools of public health, and members of affiliated organizations convened to explore values and principles relevant to health departments' engagement in abortion and delineate activities related to abortion that are appropriate for health departments. The convening followed a structured consensus process that included multiple rounds of input and opportunities for feedback and revisions.

OUTCOMES

Convening participants came to consensus on principles to guide engagement in activities related to abortion, a set of activities related to abortion that are appropriate for health departments, and next steps to support implementation of such activities.

LESSONS LEARNED

The experience of the convening indicates that consensus processes can be feasible for politically controversial public health topics such as abortion.

Applying after action review to examine residential treatment programs' responses to COVID-19

Resurgences of COVID‐19 cases are a grave public health concern. Hence, there is an urgent need for health care systems to rapidly and systematically learn from their responses to earlier waves of COVID‐19. To meet this need, this article delineates how we adapted the World Health Organization's After Action Review (AAR) framework to use within our health care system of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. An AAR is a structured, methodical evaluation of actions taken in response to an event (e.g., recent waves of COVID‐19). It delivers an actionable report regarding (i) what was expected, (ii) what actually happened, (iii) what went well, and (iv) what could have been done differently, and thus what changes are needed for future situations. We share as an example our examination of Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs in Massachusetts (a COVID‐19 hotspot). Our work can be further adapted, beyond residential treatment, as a consistent framework for reviewing COVID‐19 responses across multiple health care programs. This will identify both standardized and tailored preparations that the programs can make for future waves of the pandemic. Given the expected resurgences of COVID‐19 cases, the time to apply AAR is now.

For health care programs around the world to better respond to future waves of the pandemic, there is an urgent need for them to rapidly and systematically learn from their responses to earlier waves of COVID‐19.

This article delineates an adaptation of the World Health Organization’s After Action Review (AAR) framework, applied to examining residential treatment programs’ responses to COVID‐19.

Even beyond residential treatment programs, the outlined AAR can be further adapted as a consistent approach for reviewing COVID‐19 responses across multiple health care programs, bringing to light key commonalities and heterogeneities among programs that operate in widely varying contexts.

Main Factors Affecting the Readiness and Responsiveness of Healthcare Systems during Epidemic Crises: A Scoping Review on Cases of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19

Background:

Given the significance of the preparedness and responsiveness of healthcare systems in relation to epidemics, this study aimed to determine their influencing factors during epidemic crises with a view to utilizing the findings in the battle against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak.

Methods:

This scoping study was conducted in 2020 via the Arksey and O’Malley approach. A systematic search was conducted on five online databases from January 2000 to June 15, 2020. Initially, 1926 English articles were retrieved based on their abstracts. After the screening process, 60 articles were considered for the final analysis. Data were charted by applying Microsoft Office Excel 2013 and were synthesized via thematic analysis.

Results:

Five main factors have affected the responsiveness and preparedness of countries during the epidemics of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19: community-related interventions, managerial interventions, socioeconomic factors, the readiness of hospitals and health centers, and environmental factors. These themes are associated with 38 related sub-themes. The thematic framework shows that interactions between these five determinantes can affect the preparedness and responsiveness of healthcare systems during pandemics/epidemics.

Conclusion:

According to the results, healthcare systems need to pay attention to their internal capacities, managerial interventions, and health centers to overcome the current pandemic. They should also consider such external factors as socioeconomic and environmental determinants that can affect their potential preparedness against pandemic/epidemic crises. Community-related interventions such as improvement of the community health literacy, teamwork, and social responsibility can enhance the readiness of healthcare systems against the COVID-19 outbreak.