A scoping review of strategies to support public health recovery in the transition to a “new normal” in the age of COVID-19 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic
JAMA Network Open
IMPORTANCE The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. OBJECTIVE To create an evidence-and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. EVIDENCE REVIEW A literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. FINDINGS The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes; (2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Leaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.
2021
Background: The early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic brought multiple concurrent threats – high patient volume and acuity and, simultaneously, increased risk to health workers. Healthcare managers and decision-makers needed to identify strategies to mitigate these adverse conditions. This paper reports on the health workforce strategies implemented in relation to past large-scale emergencies (including natural disasters, extreme weather events, and infectious disease outbreaks).Methods: We conducted a rapid scoping review of health workforce responses to natural disasters, extreme weather events, and infectious disease outbreaks reported in the literature between January 2000 and April 2020. The 3582 individual results were screened to include articles which described surge responses to past emergencies for which an evaluative component was included in the report. A total of 37 articles were included in our analysis.Results: The reviewed literature describes challenges related to in...
Public Health Departments Face Formidable Issues During COVID-19 Pandemic
2020
COVID-19 has raised serious questions about the pandemic response capacity and capability of local health departments. Workforce issues have made testing and tracing very challenging for these resource-strapped public health agencies. In addition, public health has failed to respond effectively to the disproportionate COVID-19 cases and deaths occurring within minority populations. Leadership issues have also hampered public health efforts to impact coordinated responses in local communities. Given these challenges, new coalitions of academic, private, and public health providers have begun performing traditional public health disease control measures and raised even more questions about the viability of public health.
Are we there yet? The transition from response to recovery for the COVID-19 pandemic
Progress in Disaster Science, 2020
There is no corner of the planet that has not been impacted by the rapid spread of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. While the COVID-19 pandemic has already had far-reaching socioeconomic consequences commonly associated with natural hazards (such as disruption to society, economic damage, and loss of lives), the response of governments around the world has been unparalleled and unlike anything seen before. Governments are faced with a myriad of multi-dimensional effects of the pandemic, including direct impacts on public health systems and population health and indirect socioeconomic effects including disruption to every single sector of the economy and mass unemployment. There is, additionally, the growing realisation that the timescale associated with this crisis may permanently change the very foundations of societies‘normal’ day-to-day life. As the world transitions to recovering from COVID-19, those developing that recovery need support in adjusting and improving their policies and measures. The situation seems dire, the stakes are high. Literature about the transition between the response and recovery phase in relation to pandemics is scarce. A further complication is that the pandemic will not allow countries to simply transition to the full-scale recovery, instead, a rebound from recovery to response phase is expected for a certain period until the immunization is in place. Pandemics indeed force us to think beyond typical emergency management structures; the cycles of the disaster risk management in the case of biological and other natural hazards are not exactly the same and no one-size-fits-all approach may be used. Still, some parallels may be drawn with the efforts to combat natural hazards and some lessons may be used from previous and the current pandemic. Based on these experiences and reflections, this paper provides a set of policy directions to be considered during the transition towards, as well as throughout, this transition phase. It is suggested that meeting this global, multi-dimensional, and complex challenge will require considerable international collaboration (even convention) and macro-scale changes to global and national policies. The recovery issues are mainly going to be dominated by politics, economics and social science. Necessary for an effective recovery, the pandemic response needs to be a holistic response, combined with an improved data ecosystem between the public health system and the community. We should also view this outbreak and our response to it as an opportunity to learn lessons and reaffirm our universal commitment to sustainable development and enhancing wellbeing around the world.
American Journal of Public Health
This article uses a health stewardship perspective to interpret the strengths of and challenges to national health authorities’ capacities to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic through the renewed essential public health functions (EPHF) framework. Based on a literature review, this article argues that the institutional capacities required by countries to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Americas included all 4 stages of the new EPHF policy cycle: assessment, policy development, allocation of resources, and access. While health authorities provided these key functions (e.g., data analysis, intersectoral policy dialogues, allocation of additional funds), the interventions implemented depended on each country’s own institutional structures. Health authorities faced significant challenges including fragmentation and the lack of institutional and personnel capacities, thus compromising the delivery of an effective and equitable response. In addition, the response to the pandemic ha...
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 2020
The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) establishes a common platform and forum for how the whole community builds, sustains, and coordinates delivery of recovery capabilities. Resilient and sustainable recovery encompasses more than the restoration of a community's physical structures to pre-disaster conditions. Through effective coordination of partners and resources, we can ensure the continuity of services and support to meet the needs of affected community members who have experienced the hardships of financial, emotional, and/or physical impacts of devastating disasters. The primary value of the NDRF is its emphasis on preparing for recovery in advance of disaster. The ability of a community to accelerate the recovery process begins with its efforts in pre-disaster preparedness, including coordinating with whole community partners, mitigating risks, incorporating continuity planning, identifying resources, and developing capacity to effectively manage the recovery process, and through collaborative and inclusive planning processes. Collaboration across the whole community provides an opportunity to integrate mitigation, resilience, and sustainability into the community's short-and long-term recovery goals. This Framework is always in effect, and elements can be implemented at any time. The structures, roles, and responsibilities described in this Framework can be partially or fully implemented in the context of a threat or hazard, in anticipation of a significant event, or following an incident. Selective implementation of the NDRF allows for a scalable and deliberate delivery of specific resources and capabilities and a level of coordination appropriate for each incident. Building on a wealth of objective and evidence-based knowledge and community experience, this Framework seeks to increase awareness of recovery capabilities across the whole community. Key elements of the NDRF since it was first published in 2011 that are significant for all readers are the guiding principles and the Recovery core capabilities. The NDRF is guided by eight principles that when put into practice, maximize the opportunity for achieving recovery success. The guiding principles remind us of the importance of how we work together to support survivor needs and build resilience:
Rapid response to crisis: Health system lessons from the active period of COVID-19
Health Policy and Technology, 2020
Background: This paper outlines the need for a health systems approach and rapid response strategy for gathering information necessary for policy decisions during pandemics and similar crises. It suggests a new framework for assessing the phases of the pandemic. Method: The paper draws its information and conclusions from a rapid synthesis and translation process (RSTP) of a series of webinars and online discussions from the Pandemic-Mental Health International Network (Pan-MHIN)-policy experts from across 16 locations in Australia, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Taiwan, the UK and the USA. While the initial focus of this research was on mental health, COVID-19 has raised much broader issues and questions for health planners. Results: We identified gaps affecting the capacity to respond effectively and quickly, including in relation to system indicators, the inadequacy of the prior classification of the phases of the pandemic, the absences of a healthcare ecosystem approach, and the quick shift to digital technologies. The strengths and weaknesses of COVID-19 responses across different systems, services, sites and countries been identified and compared, including both low and high impacted areas. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for managerial epidemiology based on healthcare ecosystem research encompassing multidisciplinary teams, visualization tools and decision analytics for rapid response. Policy and healthcare context played a key role in the response to COVID-19. Its severity, the containment measures and the societal response varied greatly across sites and countries. Understanding this variation is vital to assess the impact of COVID-19 in specific areas such as ageing or mental health.
2021
The publication is a succinct yet comprehensive collection of relevant case studies from local civil society organizations that have responded to and provided support to communities and sectors that have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. This work was made possible by the DRR Community of Practice Project, a Give2Asia-funded undertaking that was led by Center for Disaster Preparedness (CDP) in coordination with other members of the PH DRR Community of Practice. The author wrote the case study for CDP which featured the wisdom, experience, and insight the organization had gathered and learned from its partners at the frontline who bore the brunt of this public health disaster. Moreover, the case study also shares the significant experiences and lessons brought about by CDP's response efforts, particularly its conduct of Mental Health and Psycho-Social Support (MHPSS) Sessions for partner communities and duty-bearers at the local/subnational levels. Editorial Director/Layout Artist: Michael Vincent Mercado Writer/Associate Editor & Publication Coordinator: Elyse Conde Technical Support/Proofreader: Alex Costea