Assessing Stakeholder Engagement: An Evaluation of the Health and. Medical ... (MDPH) Office of Preparedness and Emergency Management (OPEM) is engaging in a ... to disaster operations. ... (BUSPH), conducted a series of facilitated discussions with representatives from four ... Service Provision (e.g., state labs).
Assessing Stakeholder Engagement: An Evaluation of the Health and Medical Coordinating Coalitions Planning and Facilitation Project Lynn Ibekwe, MPH1, Nazmim Bhuiya, MPH1, Justeen Hyde, PhD1 1.Institute for Community Health, Cambridge, MA
Background
Results
In 2012, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began to more closely align the requirements of the Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) and the Public Health Emergency Preparedness program (PHEP) cooperative agreements. Responding to changing national priorities and a critical gap in the current Massachusetts system, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) Office of Preparedness and Emergency Management (OPEM) is engaging in a multi-year project to establish a regional multi-disciplinary health and medical coordinating coalition (HMCC) in each of the six hospital preparedness regions of Massachusetts.
FACILITATED MEETING ROUND 1 Meeting Objective: Discuss discipline-specific assets in each region and priorities for continued funding. Notable Findings: HMCC representatives identified activities within each of the core disciplines currently supported by MDPH Emergency Preparedness funding that should be priorities for continuation under HMCC funding. The following are the eight emergent categories identified as common priorities among all disciplines and regions.
The HMCCs will include five core disciplines: • local public health, • hospitals, • emergency medical services, • community health centers and ambulatory care practices, and • long term care.
Other Priorities Identified
HMCC Statewide Kickoff Meeting (December 2013)
Facilitated Meeting Round 2 (March 2014)
State-wide Facilitated Meeting 4 (June 2014)
Access to Supplies/Equipment/ Facilities (e.g., MCI trailers, PPE) ESF8 Health and Medical Organizations – May Require Support
Training/Education (e.g., HHAN drills, MCI training)
Communication & Technology Capacity/Infrastructure (e.g., radios, Reverse 911) Costs and Fees/Grants (e.g., MassMAP membership, administrative dollars) Service Provision (e.g., state labs) Staff/Personnel (e.g., coordinators, translators, consultants) FACILITATED MEETING ROUND 2 Meeting Objective: Review existing health care coalition models across the country and identify partners who should be involved in the regional HMCCs. Notable Findings: Region representatives reviewed aspects of existing health coalition models across the country.
ASPR guidelines and capabilities All-hazards approach
Broader scope than hospitalbased
Methods BUSPH partnered with the Institute for Community Health (ICH) to evaluate the HMCC facilitation activities. Using a mixed methods approach, ICH: • Administered 4 post-facilitation meeting surveys to elicit feedback, and • Reviewed meeting activity notes from the 3 region-specific meetings. The data was analyzed aggregately, using frequency statistics for quantitative items and thematic coding for qualitative notes. This poster focuses on the qualitative information gathered from the regionspecific meetings.
• • • •
Colleges/universities/schools Public Works Faith-based organizations Emergency management agencies
• Organizations that support individuals with functional needs (e.g., group homes, home health providers, Assisted Living, and Independent Living Centers)
Collaboration, Information/Resource Sharing (e.g., MOUs, MRCs)
Facilitated Meeting Round 3 (May 2014)
Region-specific meetings (Meeting in each of the 4 regions)
• Behavioral/mental health organizations/providers • Colleges/university health centers
Planning/Development Activities & Processes (e.g., COOP, ChemPAK Plan)
A number of favorable aspects from existing operational models were identified for the HMCCs in Massachusetts. Facilitated Meeting Round 1 (January 2014)
ESF8 Health and Medical Organizations – Ability to Support A Response
Other ESF Organizations – To Partner in Response
Top Priorities
HMCC Facilitation Phase Timeline
The following organizations were most commonly identified:
Continued Funding Priorities Identified by HMCC Representatives
An HMCC will be a formal collaboration among public and private healthcare organizations and public health that is organized to prepare for and respond to an emergency, mass casualty, or other catastrophic health event and will support mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery activities related to disaster operations.
OPEM, with support from Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH), conducted a series of facilitated discussions with representatives from four regions and all five disciplines to gather input that will inform the development and implementation of regional HMCCs.
Notable Findings: Region representatives identified Emergency Support Function 8 (ESF8) organizations that are able to provide support in a response, other ESF organizations that may be partners in a response, and organizations that may need support during an emergency.
Aspects of an Operational Model
Training/ education component
Various partners/ multiple disciplines
Project Collaborators: Institute for Community Health Boston University School of Public Health Practice Office Massachusetts Department of Public Health Office of Preparedness and Emergency Management
Healthcare Incident Liaison (or similar role)
72 hour readiness/ capability
FACILITATED MEETING ROUND 3 Meeting Objective: Identify desirable attributes and capacities for an HMCC and discuss pros/cons of possible governance models. Notable Findings: Region representatives identified a number of characteristics that would be desirable within a lead HMCC organization. The following were the most commonly identified attributes and capacities: • Have the ability to engage partners in all disciplines; • Be knowledgeable about the work and the region, including o ESF-8, o Incident Command System (ICS), and o All-hazards planning; • Have IT and Communications technology capacity; and • Have Fiduciary capacity, including o Manage sub-contracts, and o Manage resources among disciplines fairly.
Conclusion Through these facilitated multi-disciplinary meetings, OPEM has a better understanding of what HMCC representatives consider important for the future planning and development of regional multi-disciplinary health and medical coordinating coalitions in Massachusetts. This process led to the following recommendations: • Continue funding the priority areas identified, • Incorporate the identified model aspects to ensure the effectiveness of HMCCs in Massachusetts, • Engage the types of organizations identified as important partners in response efforts, and •Consider a lead agency with the identified desirable attributes and capacities.
