CONTEXT: During public health emergencies, office-based frontline clinicians are critical partners in the detection, treatment, and control of disease. Communication between public health authorities and frontline clinicians is critical, yet public health agencies, medical societies, and healthcare delivery organizations have all called for improvements. OBJECTIVES: Describe communication processes between public health and frontline clinicians during the first wave of the 2009 novel influenza A(H1N1) pandemic; assess clinicians' use of and knowledge about public health guidance; and assess clinicians' perceptions and preferences about communication during a public health emergency. DESIGN AND METHODS: During the first wave of the pandemic, we performed a process analysis and surveyed 509 office-based primary care providers in Utah. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Public health and healthcare leaders from major agencies involved in emergency response in Utah and office-based primary care providers located throughout Utah. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Communication process and information flow, distribution of e-mails, proportion of clinicians who accessed key Web sites at least weekly, clinicians' knowledge about recent guidance and perception about e-mail load, primary information sources, and qualitative findings from clinician feedback. RESULTS: The process analysis revealed redundant activities and messaging. The 141 survey respondents (28%) received information from a variety of sources: 68% received information from state public health; almost 100% received information from health care organizations. Only one-third visited a state public health or institutional Web site frequently enough (at least weekly) to obtain updated guidance. Clinicians were knowledgeable about guidance that did not change during the first wave; however, correct knowledge was lower after guidance changed. Clinicians felt overwhelmed by e-mail volume, preferred a single institutional e-mail for clinical guidance, and suggested that new information be concise and clearly identified. CONCLUSION: : Communication between public health, health care organizations and clinicians was redundant and overwhelming and can be enhanced considering clinician preferences and institutional communication channels.
CONTEXT: During public health emergencies, office-based frontline clinicians are critical partners in the detection, treatment, and control of disease. Communication between public health authorities and frontline clinicians is critical, yet public health agencies, medical societies, and healthcare delivery organizations have all called for improvements. OBJECTIVES: Describe communication processes between public health and frontline clinicians during the first wave of the 2009 novel influenza A(H1N1) pandemic; assess clinicians' use of and knowledge about public health guidance; and assess clinicians' perceptions and preferences about communication during a public health emergency. DESIGN AND METHODS: During the first wave of the pandemic, we performed a process analysis and surveyed 509 office-based primary care providers in Utah. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Public health and healthcare leaders from major agencies involved in emergency response in Utah and office-based primary care providers located throughout Utah. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Communication process and information flow, distribution of e-mails, proportion of clinicians who accessed key Web sites at least weekly, clinicians' knowledge about recent guidance and perception about e-mail load, primary information sources, and qualitative findings from clinician feedback. RESULTS: The process analysis revealed redundant activities and messaging. The 141 survey respondents (28%) received information from a variety of sources: 68% received information from state public health; almost 100% received information from health care organizations. Only one-third visited a state public health or institutional Web site frequently enough (at least weekly) to obtain updated guidance. Clinicians were knowledgeable about guidance that did not change during the first wave; however, correct knowledge was lower after guidance changed. Clinicians felt overwhelmed by e-mail volume, preferred a single institutional e-mail for clinical guidance, and suggested that new information be concise and clearly identified. CONCLUSION: : Communication between public health, health care organizations and clinicians was redundant and overwhelming and can be enhanced considering clinician preferences and institutional communication channels.
Authors: Nedra Y Garrett; Ninad Mishra; Barbara Nichols; Catherine J Staes; Chuck Akin; Charles Safran Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2011 Jan-Feb
Authors: Richard J Whitley; John Bartlett; Frederick G Hayden; Andrew T Pavia; Michael Tapper; Arnold S Monto Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: A Nicoll; A Ammon; A Amato Gauci; A Amato; B Ciancio; P Zucs; I Devaux; F Plata; A Mazick; K Mølbak; T Asikainen; P Kramarz Journal: Public Health Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.427
Authors: Matthew Scotch; Brittany Baarson; Rachel Beard; Robert Lauder; Aarthi Varman; Rolf U Halden Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Khaled El Emam; Jay Mercer; Katherine Moreau; Inese Grava-Gubins; David Buckeridge; Elizabeth Jonker Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Annalee Yassi; Elizabeth A Bryce; Jaime Breilh; Marie-Claude Lavoie; Lindiwe Ndelu; Karen Lockhart; Jerry Spiegel Journal: BMC Int Health Hum Rights Date: 2011-11-08
Authors: Christel E van Dijk; Mariette Hooiveld; Anne Jentink; Leslie D Isken; Aura Timen; C Joris Yzermans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wu Xu; Warren Pettey; Yarden Livnat; Per Gesteland; Deepthi Rajeev; Jonathan Reid; Matthew Samore; R Scott Evans; Robert T Rolfs; Catherine Staes Journal: Online J Public Health Inform Date: 2011-12-22