Emergency responses for a health workforce under pressure: Lessons learned from system responses to the first wave of the pandemic in Canada.

The global health workforce crisis, simmering for decades, was brought to a rolling boil by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. With scarce literature, evidence, or best practices to draw from, countries around the world moved to flex their workforces to meet acute challenges of the pandemic, facing demands related to patient volume, patient acuity, and worker vulnerability and absenteeism. One early hypothesis suggested that the acute, short-term pandemic phase would be followed by several waves of resource demands extending over the longer term. However, as the acute phase of the pandemic abated, temporary workforce policies expired and others were repealed with a view of returning to 'normal'. The workforce needs of subsequent phases of pandemic effects were largely ignored despite our new equilibrium resting nowhere near our pre-COVID baseline. In this paper, we describe Canada's early pandemic workforce response. We report the results of an environmental scan of the early workforce strategies adopted in Canada during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within an expanded three-part conceptual framework for supporting a sustainable health workforce, we describe 470 strategies and policies that aimed to increase the numbers and flexibility of health workers in Canada, and to maximise their continued availability to work. These strategies targeted all types of health workers and roles, enabling changes to the places health work is done, the way in which care is delivered, and the mechanisms by which it is regulated. Telehealth strategies and virtual care were the most prevalent, followed by role expansion, licensure flexibility, mental health supports for workers, and return to practice of retirees. We explore the degree to which these short-term, acute response strategies might be adapted or extended to support the evolving workforce's long-term needs.

Health workforce strategies in response to major health events: a rapid scoping review with lessons learned for the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 increased demand for health services and a simultaneous decrease in the availability of the workforce. Many articles also described impacts on infrastructure that hindered emergency response. These challenges aligned well with those faced during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the published literature, the workforce strategies that were described aimed either to increase the numbers of health workers in a given area, to increase the flexibility of the health workforce to meet needs in new ways, or to support and sustain health workers in practice. Workforce responses addressed all types and cadres of health workers and were executed in a wide range of settings. We additionally report on the barriers and facilitators of workforce strategies reported in the literature reviewed. The strategies that were reported in the literature aligned closely with our COVID-specific conceptual framework of workforce capacity levers, suggesting that our framework may have heuristic value across many types of health disasters. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights a key deficiency with the existing literature on workforce responses to emergencies: most papers lack substantive evaluation of the strategies implemented. Future research on health workforce capacity interventions should include robust evaluation of impact and effectiveness.