A strategy for real time improvement (RTI) in communication during the H1N1 emergency response
Isaac A. Seidl A B D , Andrew J. Johnson A C , Peta Mantel A and Peter Aitken A BA Townsville Health Service District, PO Box 670, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia.
B School of Public Health, Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia.
C School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: isaac_seidl@health.qld.gov.au
Australian Health Review 34(4) 493-498 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH09826
Submitted: 20 August 2009 Accepted: 15 March 2010 Published: 25 November 2010
Abstract
Objective. To develop and implement a strategy that would enable the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) to assess the effectiveness of communication strategies and guide real time improvements within the life cycle of the emergency.
Design, setting and participants. An anonymous internet-based questionnaire featuring multiple choice and open text questions was administered to stakeholders of the EOC of a regional tertiary hospital.
Main outcome measures. The outcomes were perceptions of sufficiency and relative usefulness of various sources of information on Pandemic (H1N1) 2009, including differences between local, state-wide and authoritative worldwide information sources.
Results. A total of 328 responses were received over two rounds of questionnaires. Email communication from the Health Incident Controller (HIC) was the most useful source of information (74% found it very useful, compared with authoritative international websites at 21% (Centers of Disease Control) and 29% (World Health Organization)). A total of 94% felt this strategy contributed to improvements. Free text responses also helped the EOC and HIC to tailor communication methods, style, content and tone during the response.
Conclusions. Real time improvement is a useful strategy for implementing change to practice during the life cycle of the current emergency and has broader applicability than Pandemic (H1N1) 2009. Local stakeholders demand local content for their information feed and messages from a trusted local leader are the most superior forms of communication.
What is known about the topic? Communication is crucial in the successful response to an emergency situation, with a link to the quality of the response.
What does this paper add? The use of online surveys, in particular the ability to make improvements immediately during the collection of responses, has not been previously reported in the literature. The key component of this is the ability to implement improvements during the life cycle of the current, rather than the next emergency.
What are the implications for practitioners? Those managing an emergency response, whether in relation to Pandemic (H1N1) 2009, or indeed any other emergency or disaster, should consider internet-based questionnaires as a method for obtaining rapid feedback and making real time improvements to their communication tone, style and methods.
References
[1] Arnold JL, Levine BN, Manmatha R, Lee F, Shenoy P, Tsai MC, Ibrahim TK, O’Brien DJ, Walsh DA. Information sharing in out-of-hospital disaster response: The future role of information technology. Prehosp Disaster Med 2004; 19 201–7.| 15571195PubMed |
[2] Chan TC, Killeen J, Griswold W, Lenert L. Information technology and emergency medical care during disasters. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11 1229–36.
| Information technology and emergency medical care during disasters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15528589PubMed |
[3] Benner T, Schaechinger U, Nerlich M. Medical telematics in disaster response. Stud Health Technol Inform 2003; 97 15–23.
| 15537226PubMed |
[4] McEntire DA. Issues in disaster relief: progress, perpetual problems and prospective solutions. Disaster Prevention and Management 1999; 8 351–61.
| Issues in disaster relief: progress, perpetual problems and prospective solutions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Aziz AA, Chi HT, Dauphinee W, Davenport D, Gonzales R, Jaeger H, Kipor GV, Mares CA, Shrestha RP, Yoshinaga K. Effective models for medical and health response coordination: summary and action plan. Prehosp Disaster Med 2001; 16 33–5.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3nt1OjtQ%3D%3D&md5=88c2cbcfc87a43f1fbeddb46950e560fCAS | 11367937PubMed |
[6] Iannella R. Incident notification: requirements and frameworks. In: Recent advances in counter-terrorism technology and infrastructure protection. Proceedings of the 2005 Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) Summit; 12–14 July 2005; Canberra. Research Network for a Secure Australia; 2005.
[7] The Australasian Inter-service Incident Management System. Third Edition, Version 1. Australasian Fire Authority Council; 2004.
[8] Iannella R, Henricksen K. Managing information in the Disaster Coordination Centre: lessons and opportunities. In: Van de Walle B, Burghardt P, Nieuwenhuis C, editors. Proceedings ISCRAM 2007 – Intelligent Human Computer Systems for Crisis Response and Management; 13–16 May 2007; Delft, the Netherlands. ISCRAM Community; 2007. pp. 581–590.
[9] Mathew D. Information technology and public health management of disasters – a model for South Asian countries. Prehosp Disaster Med 2005; 20 54–60.
| 15748016PubMed |
[10] Bonometti RJ, Tang J. A dynamic technique for conducting online survey-based research. Competitiveness Review 2006; 16 95–105.
| A dynamic technique for conducting online survey-based research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Baruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Hum Relat 2008; 61 1139–60.
| Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Birnbaum ML. Professionalization and credentialing. Prehosp Disaster Med 2005; 20 210–1.
| 16128467PubMed |
[13] Birnbaum ML. The importance of the Phuket Papers. Prehosp Disaster Med 2005; 20 353–4.
| 16496613PubMed |
[14] Lynch T, Cox P. Reverse quality management: developing evidence-based practices in health emergency management. Qual Manag Health Care 2006; 15 104–15.
| 16622359PubMed |
[15] Kiesler S, Sproul LS. Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opin Q 1986; 50 402–13.
| Response effects in the electronic survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Seale H, McLaws M-L, Heywood AE, Ward KF, Lowbridge CP, Van D, Gralton J, MacIntyre CR. Pandemic (H1N1) 2009: the community’s attitude towards swine flu and pandemic influenza. Med J Aust 2009; 191 267–9. [Rapid Online Publication 29 July 2009].
| 19740048PubMed |
[17] Seale H, Leask J, Po K, MacIntyre CR. ‘Will they just pack up and leave?’ – attitudes and intended behaviour of hospital health care workers during an influenza pandemic. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9 30
| ‘Will they just pack up and leave?’ – attitudes and intended behaviour of hospital health care workers during an influenza pandemic.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19216792PubMed |
[18] Burns RB. Introduction to Research Methods. Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman; 1990.
