Centering Health Equity in the Implementation of the Hospital Incident Command System: A Qualitative Case Comparison Study.

OBJECTIVE: Disasters exacerbate inequities in health care. Health systems use the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) to plan and coordinate their disaster response. This study examines how 2 health systems prioritized equity in implementing the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and identifies factors that influenced implementation. METHODS: This is a qualitative case comparison study, involving semi-structured interviews with 29 individuals from 2 US academic health systems. Strategies for promoting health equity were categorized by social determinants of health. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided analysis using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: The health systems used various strategies to incorporate health equity throughout implementation, addressing all 5 social determinants of health domains. Facilitators included HICS principles, external partnerships, community relationships, senior leadership, health equity experts and networks, champions, equity-stratified data, teaming, and a culture of health equity. Barriers encompassed clarity of the equity representative role, role ambiguity for equity representatives, tokenism, competing priorities, insufficient resource allocation, and lack of preparedness. CONCLUSIONS: These findings elucidate how health systems centered equity during HICS implementation. Health systems and regulatory bodies can use these findings as a foundation to revise the HICS and move toward a more equitable disaster response.

Embedding Equity into the Hospital Incident Command System: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Disasters exacerbate health inequities, with historically marginalized populations experiencing unjust differences in health care access and outcomes. Health systems plan and respond to disasters using the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS), an organizational structure that centralizes communication and decision-making. The HICS does not have an equity role or considerations built into its standard structure. The authors conducted a narrative review to identify and summarize approaches to embedding equity into the HICS. METHODS: The peer-reviewed (PubMed, SCOPUS) and gray literature was searched for articles from high-income countries that referenced the HICS or Incident Command System (ICS) and equity, disparities, or populations that experience inequities in disasters. The primary focus of the search strategy was health care, but the research also included governmental and public health system articles. Two authors used inductive thematic analysis to assess commonalities and refined the themes based on feedback from all authors. RESULTS: The database search identified 479 unique abstracts; 76 articles underwent full-text review, and 11 were included in the final analysis. The authors found 5 articles through cited reference searching and 13 from the gray literature search, which included websites, organizations, and non-indexed journal articles. Three themes from the articles were identified: including equity specialists in the HICS, modifying systems to promote equity, and sensitivity to the local community. CONCLUSION: Several efforts to embed equity into the HICS and disaster preparedness and response were discovered. This review provides practical strategies health system leaders can include in their HICS and emergency preparedness plans to promote equity in their disaster response.

Being "low on the totem pole": What makes work worthwhile for medical assistants in an era of primary care transformation.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is undergoing a transformation to become increasingly team-based and multidisciplinary. The medical assistant (MA) is considered a core occupation in the primary care workforce, yet existing studies suggest problematic rates and costs of MA turnover. PURPOSE: We investigated what MAs perceive their occupation to be like and what they value in it to understand how to promote sustainable employability, a concept that is concerned with an employee's ability to function and remain in their job in the long term. APPROACH: We used a case of a large, integrated health system in the United States that practices team-based care and has an MA career development program. We conducted semistructured interviews with 16 MAs in this system and performed an inductive analysis of themes. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed four themes on what MAs value at work: (a) using clinical competence, (b) being a multiskilled resource for clinic operations, (c) building meaningful relationships with patients and coworkers, and (d) being recognized for occupational contributions. MAs perceived scope-of-practice regulations as limiting their use of clinical competence. They also perceived task similarity with nurses in the primary care setting and expressed a relative lack of performance recognition. CONCLUSION: Some of the practice changes that enable primary care transformation may hinder MAs' ability to attain their work values. Extant views on sustainable employability assume a high bar for intrinsic values but are limited when applied to low-wage health care workers in team-based environments. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Efforts to effectively employ and retain MAs should consider proactive communications on scope-of-practice regulations, work redesign to emphasize clinical competence, and the establishment of greater recognition and respect among MAs and nurses.

Development and application of a survey instrument to measure collaboration among health care and social services organizations.

OBJECTIVE: To measure strategies of interorganizational collaboration among health care and social service organizations that serve older adults. STUDY SETTING: Twenty Hospital Service Areas (HSAs) in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: We developed and validated a novel scale to characterize interorganizational collaboration, and then tested its application by assessing whether the scale differentiated between HSAs with high vs low performance on potentially avoidable health care use and spending for Medicare beneficiaries. DATA COLLECTION: Health care and social service organizations (N = 173 total) in each HSA completed a 12-item collaboration scale, three questions about collaboration behaviors, and a detailed survey documenting collaborative network ties. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified two distinguishable subscales of interorganizational collaboration: (a) Aligning Strategy and (b) Coordinating Current Work. Each subscale demonstrated convergent validity with the organization's position in the collaborative network, and with collaboration behaviors. The full scale and Coordinating Current Work subscale did not differentiate high- vs low-performing HSAs, but the Aligning Strategy subscale was significantly higher in high-performing HSAs than in low-performing HSAs (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sector collaboration-and particularly Aligning Strategy-is associated with health care use and spending for older adults. This new survey measure could be used to track the impact of interventions to foster interorganizational collaboration.

Collaboration in Health Care and Social Service Networks for Older Adults: Association With Health Care Utilization Measures.

BACKGROUND: Services targeting social determinants of health-such as income support, housing, and nutrition-have been shown to improve health outcomes and reduce health care costs for older adults. Nevertheless, evidence on the properties of effective collaborative networks across health care and social services sectors is limited. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of this study were to identify features of collaborative networks of health care and social services organizations associated with avoidable health care use and spending for older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN: Through a 2017 survey, we collected data on collaborative ties among health care and social service organizations in 20 US communities with either high or low performance on avoidable health care use and spending for Medicare beneficiaries. Six types of ties were measured: any collaboration, referrals, sharing information, cosponsoring projects, financial contracts, and joint needs assessment. We examined how characteristics of collaborative networks were associated with performance. RESULTS: High-performing networks were distinguished from low-performing networks by 2 features: (1) health care organizations occupied positions of significantly greater centrality (P<0.01), and (2) subnetworks of cosponsorship ties were more cohesive, as measured by centralization (P=0.05) and density (P=0.06). Across all networks, Area Agencies on Aging were more centrally positioned than any other type of organization (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sector engagement by health care organizations, particularly development of deeper types of collaborative ties such as cosponsorship, may reduce preventable health care use and spending. Efforts to foster effective partnerships could leverage the Area Agencies on Aging, which are already positioned as network brokers.

Blueprint for the dissemination of evidence-based practices in health care.

Aimed at fostering the broad adoption of effective health care interventions, this report proposes a blueprint for improving the dissemination of best practices by national quality improvement campaigns. The blueprint's eight key strategies are to: 1) highlight the evidence base and relative simplicity of recommended practices; 2) align campaigns with strategic goals of adopting organizations; 3) increase recruitment by integrating opinion leaders into the enrollment process; 4) form a coalition of credible campaign sponsors; 5) generate a threshold of participating organizations that maximizes network exchanges; 6) develop practical implementation tools and guides for key stakeholder groups; 7) create networks to foster learning opportunities; and 8) incorporate monitoring and evaluation of milestones and goals. The impact of quality campaigns also depends on contextual factors, including the nature of the innovation itself, external environmental incentives, and features of adopting organizations.