scholarly journals Using after‐action reviews of outbreaks to enhance public health responses: lessons for COVID‐19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig B Dalton ◽  
Martyn D Kirk ◽  
David N Durrheim
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
After Action Reviews

scholarly journals Getting the most from after action reviews to improve global health security

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Stoto ◽  
Christopher Nelson ◽  
Rachael Piltch-Loeb ◽  
Landry Ndriko Mayigane ◽  
Frederik Copper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Cultural Sensitivity ◽  
Meaningful Learning ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
Event Analysis ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
System Improvement ◽  
After Action Reviews

Abstract Background After Action Reviews (AARs) provide a means to observe how well preparedness systems perform in real world conditions and can help to identify – and address – gaps in national and global public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) systems. WHO has recently published guidance for voluntary AARs. This analysis builds on this guidance by reviewing evidence on the effectiveness of AARs as tools for system improvement and by summarizing some key lessons about ensuring that AARs result in meaningful learning from experience. Results Empirical evidence from a variety of fields suggests that AARs hold considerable promise as tools of system improvement for PHEP. Our review of the literature and practical experience demonstrates that AARs are most likely to result in meaningful learning if they focus on incidents that are selected for their learning value, involve an appropriately broad range of perspectives, are conducted with appropriate time for reflection, employ systems frameworks and rigorous tools such as facilitated lookbacks and root cause analysis, and strike a balance between attention to incident specifics vs. generalizable capacities and capabilities. Conclusions Employing these practices requires a PHEP system that facilitates the preparation of insightful AARs, and more generally rewards learning. The barriers to AARs fall into two categories: concerns about the cultural sensitivity and context, liability, the political response, and national security; and constraints on staff time and the lack of experience and the requisite analytical skills. Ensuring that AARs fulfill their promise as tools of system improvement will require ongoing investment and a change in mindset. The first step should be to clarify that the goal of AARs is organizational learning, not placing blame or punishing poor performance. Based on experience in other fields, the buy-in of agency and political leadership is critical in this regard. National public health systems also need support in the form of toolkits, guides, and training, as well as research on AAR methods. An AAR registry could support organizational improvement through careful post-event analysis of systems’ own events, facilitate identification and sharing of best practices across jurisdictions, and enable cross-case analyses.

scholarly journals Enhancing Reporting of After Action Reviews of Public Health Emergencies to Strengthen Preparedness: A Literature Review and Methodology Appraisal

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (03) ◽  
pp. 618-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Davies ◽  
Elly Vaughan ◽  
Graham Fraser ◽  
Robert Cook ◽  
Massimo Ciotti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Reporting Standard ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Reporting Templates ◽  
Reporting Structure ◽  
Significant Divergence ◽  
After Action Reviews

ABSTRACTObjectiveThis literature review aimed to identify the range of methods used in after action reviews (AARs) of public health emergencies and to develop appraisal tools to compare methodological reporting and validity standards.MethodsA review of biomedical and gray literature identified key approaches from AAR methodological research, real-world AARs, and AAR reporting templates. We developed a 50-item tool to systematically document AAR methodological reporting and a linked 11-item summary tool to document validity. Both tools were used sequentially to appraise the literature included in this study.ResultsThis review included 24 highly diverse papers, reflecting the lack of a standardized approach. We observed significant divergence between the standards described in AAR and qualitative research literature, and real-world AAR practice. The lack of reporting of basic methods to ensure validity increases doubt about the methodological basis of an individual AAR and the validity of its conclusions.ConclusionsThe main limitations in current AAR methodology and reporting standards may be addressed through our 11 validity-enhancing recommendations. A minimum reporting standard for AARs could help ensure that findings are valid and clear for others to learn from. A registry of AARs, based on a common reporting structure, may further facilitate shared learning. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:618-625)

Public Health and Newborn Hearing Screening

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Terrey Oliver Penn ◽  
Susan E. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing Screening ◽  
Newborn Hearing

Public Health: Policy and Politics

2001 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 507-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Baggott ◽  
David J Hunter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Public Health Policy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document