Engaging the Public in Critical
Disaster Planning and Decision
Making

INTRODUCTION1

Building on the recommendations and guidance in the 2012 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report Crisis Standards of Care: A Systems Framework for Catastrophic Disaster Response, the IOM Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events sponsored an interactive workshop session at the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) Public Health Preparedness Summit, held March 12-15, 2013, in Atlanta, Georgia. The goals of the session were to provide practitioners with practical guidance and encourage participants to strategize their efforts and leverage work already being done around the country. Specifically, presentation and discussion objectives were to2

•   Introduce the key principles of public engagement

•   Provide practical guidance on how to plan and implement a public engagement activity

•   Provide attendees with sample tools to facilitate planning

___________________

1 The role of the ad hoc planning committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events was limited to developing this session (i.e., workshop) for the National Association of County and City Health Officials Summit. This summary has been prepared by the rapporteurs as a factual overview of the presentations and discussions at the session. Statements, recommendations, and opinions expressed are those of individual presenters and participants, and are not necessarily endorsed or verified by the IOM or the Forum, and they should not be construed as reflecting any group consensus.

2 The complete statement of task can be found in Appendix B.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
Engaging the Public in Critical Disaster Planning and Decision Making INTRODUCTION1 Building on the recommendations and guidance in the 2012 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report Crisis Standards of Care: A Systems Framework for Catastrophic Disaster Response, the IOM Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events sponsored an interactive workshop session at the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) Public Health Prep- aredness Summit, held March 12-15, 2013, in Atlanta, Georgia. The goals of the session were to provide practitioners with practical guidance and encourage participants to strategize their efforts and leverage work already being done around the country. Specifically, presentation and discussion objectives were to2  Introduce the key principles of public engagement  Provide practical guidance on how to plan and implement a public engagement activity  Provide attendees with sample tools to facilitate planning 1 The role of the ad hoc planning committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events was limited to developing this session (i.e., workshop) for the National Association of County and City Health Officials Summit. This summary has been prepared by the rapporteurs as a factual overview of the presentations and discussions at the session. Statements, recommend- ations, and opinions expressed are those of individual presenters and participants, and are not necessarily endorsed or verified by the IOM or the Forum, and they should not be construed as reflecting any group consensus. 2 The complete statement of task can be found in Appendix B. 1

OCR for page 1
2 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING  Introduce and simulate different methods of engagement exercises The workshop examined theories and practices of public engagement, explored challenges and lessons learned, and included sample public engagement exercises. The workshop was organized in two parts. First, invited panelists provided background on crisis stand- ards of care (CSC) and public engagement and discussed specific examples of recent public engagement exercises and lessons learned in their communities. In the second part, attendees participated in two simulated, interactive public engagement exercises using two different methods. These abbreviated exercises were intended to give attendees a better sense of the engagement process and a sampling of tools available to them for working with their own communities. Public engagement is a useful approach for obtaining public input about pending policy decisions that require difficult choices among competing values (IOM, 2012a). Although average citizens may lack the expertise to comment on technical issues (e.g., the use of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores to allocate ventilators), they are very capable of deliberating on the values underlying public policy decisions (e.g., whether to withhold or withdraw life-preserving care, such as ventilators, in crisis situations where resources become scarce). Some of the benefits of public engagement are that it can help inform members of the community, include their input in disaster planning to increase legitimacy and acceptance, and reveal public misunderstandings, biases, and areas of deep disagreement. Policy makers can then work to address these matters during the development of disaster plans and during the plan dissemination phase by having community members at the table in the beginning stages of the process. About This Summary The report that follows summarizes the presentations by the expert panelists and the open panel discussions that took place during the workshop. Beginning by framing and defining public engagement outreach during the planning stages, it moves to describing the specific case studies speakers presented during the workshop. These include Seattle and King County, Washington; Harris County, Texas; the State of Michigan; and an example from the IOM and the Centers for Disease

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 3 Control and Prevention (CDC). Following these case studies, challenges and lessons learned are discussed, and finally a description of the two simulated public engagement exercises performed during the workshop: a community conversation simulation and a Q-sort activity based on a severe influenza pandemic scenario. A list of references, the statement of task, the workshop agenda, and biographical sketches of the panelists are available in the appendixes. FRAMING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Unexpected incidents occur every day, and generally people find a way to work around them and continue on, said Dr. Umair Shah, deputy director, Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services (HCPHES), and director of the HCPHES Division of Disease Control and Clinical Prevention. When such incidents are life-threatening or cause significant harm, they are referred to as emergencies. When emergencies completely overwhelm our abilities to cope or respond, they are called disasters. Disaster incidents are categorized as catastrophic or pervasive and can be manmade or natural in occurrence, Shah explained. Catastrophic incidents occur suddenly, with little or no notice (e.g., intentional acts of violence, mass casualty incidents, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes). In contrast, Shah continued, pervasive incidents can have a slower onset and often progress gradually (e.g., floods, wildfires, pandemic influenza). Defining Public Engagement The process of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery is a multifaceted partnership, he said, and communities are key partners in making sure that a disaster response is successful. Citing the 2009 IOM report, Shah said that government at all levels should “partner with and work to ensure strong public engagement of community and provider stakeholders, with particular attention given to the needs of vulnerable populations including those with special needs,” who often are left out of the decision-making process. To help facilitate public involvement, the 2012 IOM Crisis Standards of Care report defines the essential principles of public engagement and includes a user-friendly toolkit for use by state and local agencies.

OCR for page 1
4 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING The overall goal of public engagement is to ensure that there is public input about policy decisions that may require difficult choices among competing values (IOM, 2012a). This involves two-way com- munication: both informing community members of sensitive policy decisions and receiving community input on difficult matters. Shah highlighted five essential tenets of public engagement discussed in the IOM CSC report (2012a): 1. Policy makers may seek public engagement for a variety of reasons. 2. Adequate support and resources are needed to allow for a high- quality process. 3. Participants should represent the diversity of the community, especially underrepresented populations. 4. The process should offer participants a meaningful opportunity for deliberation (but not necessarily consensus). 5. Policy makers should ensure transparency around how com- munity input will be used in policy development and share final policy decisions. Many of the benefits of public engagement are obvious, Shah said. In the short term, public engagement provides greater visibility and public awareness about the need for local disaster preparedness plans and initiatives and the importance of community and individual preparedness in general. In the long term, policies that reflect community values and priorities will be met with greater public acceptance and adherence, should they ever need to be implemented. One of the main challenges to public engagement is ensuring the credibility of the process, for example, convening participants who reflect the diversity of the community and facilitating meaningful conversations. There are also challenges in applying the outputs of community engagement to policy making, for example, collecting actionable data and managing expectations around how those data will be used. Initiating and sustaining the public engagement process amid ever- increasing competition for resources is also a challenge.

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 5 Expanding Practical Experience Shah provided a brief overview of the toolkit from the 2012 IOM Crisis Standards of Care report and referred participants to the full report for further details. The development of the toolkit by the IOM committee was informed by earlier practical experiences of Seattle and King County, Washington; Harris County, Texas; the State of Minnesota; and two pilot programs in Boston and Lawrence, Massachusetts. The result is a set of resources for “community conversations” that state and local jurisdictions can tailor and adapt to their specific needs. The toolkit includes a sample agenda, content slides, facilitator scripts and strategies, surveys, scenarios (e.g., a major earthquake), data collection templates, and other resources. These can be used to engage the lay public in discussion about the values that should underlie the allocation of scarce medical resources in a disaster. The toolkit is designed for agencies to address a list of important questions; Shah continued—for example, how to engage community partners, how to reflect a community’s diversity, and how to make the materials understandable for the intended audience. What is the appropriate length of a public engagement meeting and what skills and backgrounds should facilitators have? What should be done with the data, and is this research that should be reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB)? Further, the toolkit is designed to provide a framework beyond simply CSC engagement activities. For example, it also was used during a CDC-sponsored IOM workshop that examined the public perception of alternative strategies for facilitating antiviral medication during pandemic flu (IOM, 2012b). THEORY TO PRACTICE: PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Sharing lessons learned across communities provides valuable information as more states, regions, and counties take on the responsibility of engaging the public in disaster preparedness planning. Learning from the successes and challenges of others can help to shorten the timeframe of a project, make the most of limited resources, and ensure that activities are effective in reaching their set goals. To assist jurisdictions in planning public engagement activities, presenters offered four examples of recent public engagement activities they had been a

OCR for page 1
6 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING part of at the local, state, and national levels. Seattle and King County, Washington, and Harris County, Texas, used different approaches for operating similar public meetings on allocation; Michigan leveraged the Internet for outreach on ethical guidelines; and the CDC partnered with the IOM to execute targeted meetings in geographically diverse locations around the country. Seattle and King County, Washington Meredith Li-Vollmer, risk communication specialist for Public Health–Seattle and King County, Washington, pointed out that public health departments already use different forms of community engage- ment in their day-to-day work. There are various forms of engagement with the public, spanning the spectrum from educational outreach to consultative information-gathering activities to community-led initiatives (see Figure 1). For the purposes of engaging the public in disaster planning, Li-Vollmer focused on a deliberative meeting model of public eng- agement. This is a consultation process in which public health officials gather information and exchange ideas and opinions on policy options with the public. This model of engagement is most effective when used to gather community input that will shape the outcome of a specific policy question, Li-Vollmer said, and should not simply be a presentation of a predetermined policy for which officials are seeking buy-in. She noted that holding a deliberative meeting in which policy options are weighed sets the expectation that input provided by the community will be considered in policy development. As noted by Shah earlier, trans- parency about this process is essential to promote trust. Medical Service Prioritization During an Influenza Pandemic Li-Vollmer shared the experiences of Seattle and King County Public Health from engaging the public on CSC for the allocation of scarce medical resources during an influenza pandemic. The meetings were funded using CDC grants to address pandemic influenza. She stressed the importance of having a clear understanding from the beginning of exactly what input is being sought from the community. For example, CSC can encompass many issues, so a steering committee of

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 7 FIGURE 1 Spectrum of public engagement. SOURCE: Li-Vollmer presentation, adapted from R. Bernier, CDC Immun- ization Program. stakeholders was convened to help narrow down the topics and define key questions for the public engagement session. In this particular public engagement session, the questions posed to the community were  Should we change how medical treatment decisions are made during a severe influenza pandemic?  What should be the goals when decisions are made about medical treatment during a severe influenza pandemic?  How should decisions be made about the rationing of limited, lifesaving resources (e.g., intensive care unit beds, ventilators)?  Should these decisions about medical treatment be consistent across hospitals in the region, across the state, or across the nation? Recruitment Four community engagement meetings were held at four distinct sites in different parts of King County. Participants were selected for broad diversity based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, income, and education (Seattle & King County Public Health, 2009). Participants across all four meetings included 30 stakeholders, 57 residents of North King County, 49 residents of South King County, and 17 Spanish- speaking residents (each distinct group was part of a separate meeting).

OCR for page 1
8 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING Li-Vollmer explained that the Spanish-speaking residents attended a meeting conducted only in Spanish, with relevant Spanish language materials that were transcribed and then translated back to English for ease of understanding by public health staff. For public recruitment, the public health department used input from the steering committee and the Vulnerable Populations Actions Team (VPAT) to recruit residents-at- large (“public participants”). VPAT identified different local org- anizations that served as project partners to recruit participants, assist with the development of culturally appropriate materials and methods, and review any translated materials. Additional recruitment was conducted through schools, volunteer emergency response organizations, parent groups and associations, faith-based organizations, housing organizations, student organizations, community centers, libraries, online through Craigslist, and other public places near the meeting sites. Participants were compensated for their time in the amount of $100 (Seattle & King County Public Health, 2009). Similarly, for key stakeholders, participants were recruited from a wide range of community organizations and agencies, including  hospitals, health care providers, and administration staff, including community health clinics, home health care agencies, and nursing and adult living homes;  emergency response and management;  businesses;  faith-based organizations;  social service and advocacy organizations serving diverse populations, including immigrant and refugee service providers, sensory and physical disability providers, and housing service providers; and  schools (Seattle & King County Public Health, 2009). Meetings Li-Vollmer explained that the meetings were generally between 4 and 8 hours in length, which allowed ample time to gather in-depth input. A variety of methods were used to gauge community opinion on the issues. Pre- and post-session surveys were administered to collect information on public attitudes. Participants were split into small groups to discuss decision making in hypothetical situations. Q-sort opinion ranking exercises were also very successful at engaging people, she said

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 9 (the specifics of Q-sort methodology are described in Box 1). Two interactive public engagement exercises, including a Q-sort activity, were demonstrated at the workshop by Shah and Li-Vollmer and are described in further detail in the final section on exercises. BOX 1 Q-Sort Methodology Preparation In Q method participants are asked to sort a set of statements represent- ing a broad diversity of opinions and perspectives on the phenomenon being investigated. Items for the Q set can be gathered from a variety of sources; for example, direct quotes and themes from interviews with participants . . . and statements originating from academic literature and popular media in addition to interviews. . . . A complete set of scale items (from previous research) can be used to create a ready-made Q set. A set of between 40 and 80 statements is considered satisfactory. Be- tween 40 and 60 participants are recommended, but effective studies with far fewer participants have been carried out Pilot studies require a small number, perhaps selected strategically to include participants who can provide a wide range of viewpoints, helpful comments, and additional statements from a varie- ty of perspectives. In preparation for the sorting task, each item is numbered and written on a separate card. Sorting Participants sort the cards according to the instructions given by the re- searcher. For example, an instruction could be to sort the cards initially into three piles according to whether the person “agrees,” “disagrees,” or “neither agrees, nor disagrees (neutral)” with the statement. Participants continue to sort the cards within each broad pile, according to the number of possible positions in the sorting template. For example, working with the “agree” pile, participants select the two items they agree with most (+6 column in the template), then the three items with a slightly lower degree of agreement (+5), and proceed until all the items in the agree pile have been allocated. The process is repeated with the “disagree” pile and continues with the participant distributing the cards in the neutral pile into the remaining positions until all cards have been sorted. Participants then write all of the statement numbers in the appropriate boxes in the template provided. In a post-sorting interview, each participant is asked to comment on the statements, to suggest additional items that might be includ- ed, and to point out items that are not clear, and so on. Such open-ended ques- tions aid the interpretations of the sorting configuration. Processing Each completed template is entered as data. A general statistical package such as SPSS or a dedicated Q package can be used.a The program corre-

OCR for page 1
10 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING lates each Q sort (i.e., a completed template) with each other Q sort to identify a small number of factors that can represent shared forms of understandings among participants. Various techniques of factor rotation and statistical proce- dures are used to safeguard factor reliability.b The Q sorts of all participants who loaded significantly on a factor are merged to produce a single configura- tion, which serves as a factor array, or factor exemplar. A table of all factors and the ranking assigned to each statement in each factor is constructed to serve as a basis for factor interpretation. _____________________________ a PCQ . . . or freeware PQMethod-2.11d, available at http://schmolck.userweb.mwn. de/qmethod (accessed September 20, 2013). b These can be performed automatically by the program . . . For a factor to be in- terpretable, one requirement is an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 (an eigenvalue is the sum of squared loadings for a factor; it conceptually represents the amount of variance accounted for by a factor). A second requirement is that a factor must have at least two sorts that load significantly on it alone. SOURCE: Shinebourne, 2009. Public engagement meetings were held with both vested stakeholders and diverse members of the community. Li-Vollmer clarified that, because everyone is really a stakeholder in a crisis situation, the term “vested stakeholders” was used to describe those who were already involved in planning and response in some fashion. For example, vested stakeholders in a public engagement exercise on the allocation of scarce medical resources would include health care providers, health care administrators, emergency management, large employers, schools, and advocates from community- and faith-based organizations. For community meetings, she said, it is important to try to engage people across the spectrum of socioeconomics, education, race, ethnicity, and age who are representative of those living in the community. In some cases, interpreters may be needed, and for the vested stakeholder group, an American Sign Language Interpreter was present for that meeting. Li- Vollmer reported that lay members of the community were engaged, active, and respectful during the sessions, and were very capable of deliberating on the complex health and ethical issues under discussion. Keys to Success Key to success, Li-Vollmer said, were the partnerships with the community-based organizations and human service providers on the steering committee. Input from these community partners played an

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 11 important role in project design. For example, one proposed question for the session was “should the federal government be ethically obligated to develop a data collection infrastructure to help with decision making about medical triage?” However, steering committee members from community-based organizations felt that this question would not engage people. Instead, they urged more focus on issues of access, and the question used for the public session was “what concerns do you have about equitable access to lifesaving medical resources in an emergency?” Partners helped to identify barriers to participation (e.g., transportation to the site), advised on meeting structure (e.g., people would more likely attend a 1-day, 7- to 8-hour meeting than shorter sessions over 2 days), and reviewed the meeting materials for cultural relevance, literacy level, and quality of translations. Community partners were also crucial to recruiting participants for the session. With regard to resources, Li-Vollmer explained that the CDC grant funding was used to cover staff time (and overtime), facility rentals, meals, incentives for participation, translators, and bilingual facilitators. The greatest expenditure, she said, was staff time. A full-time project manager was hired because, in addition to all of the planning and setup, Q-sort is a particularly labor-intensive method involving numerous interviews and extensive data collection. Seattle and King County was among the first to perform this type of public engagement, and had to learn and develop processes and materials along the way. But Li-Vollmer advised participants that there are now many resources available, and she and others around the country who have done such activities are willing to share their materials. For useful resources, she referred participants to the public engagement toolkit from the Seattle and King County Advanced Practice Center in association with the NACCHO Advanced Practice Center,3 as well as to the IOM Crisis Standards of Care public engagement toolkit (2012a). Results of Seattle and King County Public Engagement Q-Sort Activity Li-Vollmer shared some of the findings from the Seattle and King County public engagement on scarce medical resource allocation.4 The most striking finding, she said, was how similarly people felt. She had 3 See http://www.apctoolkits.com/documents/vp/Public_Engagement_Project_Final_ Report_for_web.pdf (accessed April 26, 2013). 4 Full results are available in the final report. See http://www.apctoolkits.com/documents /vp/Public_Engagement_Project_Final_Report_for_web.pdf (accessed April 26, 2013).

OCR for page 1
30 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING Activity Purpose all of the region’s health care providers should follow the same rules. Other features: sudden onset, geographically contained event.  Participants asked to do forced ranking of hypothetical patients and share their perceptions of the associated challenges. Participants asked to share views on what underlying values and goals should drive decisions. 7. Deadly Virus Scenario  Elicit views on key worker status as criterion for resource allocation. Also, address the role of government agencies in promoting consistent application of CSC rules within the affected area, and withdrawal of treatment.  Participants asked to share views on what underlying values and goals should drive decisions. 8. Report-Out  Give table groups the chance to share key thoughts and identify points of difference and intersection within the larger group.  Spark larger group discussion and input.  Further inform and influence thinking of participants.  Identify changes in participant views pre- 9. Post-Survey and post-session.  Give participants a chance to consider the range of opinions in the room. 10. Discussion of Survey  Satisfy participant interest in survey results. -----Results  Final opportunity to elicit more information on participant views around CSC issues. 11. Final Question  Big-picture question to wrap up discussion. 12. Wrap-Up  Words from sponsor about local disaster preparedness planning initiatives and resources and the importance of individual and community preparedness.  Thank participants.

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 31 Activity Purpose 13. Evaluation  How did participants experience the session? Do they feel better informed, that they had a chance to share their views, and that it was a valuable exercise? SOURCE: Shah presentation (March 14, 2013), adapted from IOM, 2012a. BOX 3 Sample Introductory Exercise to Establish Baseline Opinions (Abbreviated) Imagine a major disaster strikes (earthquake, hurricane, terrorist attack, pandemic flu, etc.). Suddenly, there are not enough medical resources to provide the normal level of health care to everyone in need. Do you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) disagree, or (4) strongly disagree with the following statements? 1. It is better to save the most lives—even if it means that some people will not get all of the medical care they would get under normal conditions. 2. More medical care should go to save younger patients because they have the most years to live. 3. The best way to decide who should be treated is to do a lottery or draw straws 4. Health care providers should be at the front of the line for care if they will be able to help save others when they recover. 5. Health care providers should be allowed to perform services different from their usual duties if that might save more patients. 6. Every hospital in the disaster area should follow the same rules when deciding how to use limited medical resources. SOURCE: Shah presentation (March 14, 2013) adapted from IOM, 2012a. After the participants and facilitators have completed the intro- ductory exercises and become familiar with the format of the meeting (e.g., break-out group structure and reporting out, clicker technology for surveys), there would be an expert presentation about CSC so that everyone in the room would have the same minimum level of background on the issue. Crisis scenarios would then be presented and participants would again break into small groups to deliberate and then report out.

OCR for page 1
32 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING After all breakout groups have reported on their deliberations, participants are given a post-survey consisting of the same questions they were asked in the pre-survey. The intent is to identify changes in opinions after the presentations and discussions. There are two ways to conduct the pre- and post-surveys, Shah said. The facilitators could show the data from the pre-survey “live” as it is collected with the audience response technology, or they could wait and show the pre- and post- responses side by side during the discussion of the post-survey results. One concern raised during the workshop about showing pre-survey results as they are collected is that participants whose response was in the minority for a particular question may be hesitant to express that opinion again (i.e., some post-survey responses could be more influenced by the initial popular opinion than by the deliberations). Finally, after wrap-up comments from the sponsor of the public engagement exercise, participants are asked to evaluate their experience at the session. Attendee Discussion of the Simulated Community Conversation Although workshop attendees discussed actual policy questions about CSC as part of these simulated exercises, the purpose was not to collect public opinion data on the issues but rather for attendees to experience the process. As such, this summary of the discussion of the issues is included to illustrate the process and some of the challenges participants might face during the activities, and is not a presentation of valid public opinion data on the issues. For the simulated public engagement exercise in this workshop session, Shah presented the deadly virus scenario and questions from the IOM toolkit for workshop attendees to discuss in the breakout groups (see Box 4). The attendees divided themselves into two groups that were similar in number, but they did not give any attention to balance of background, age, or occupation. During this simulated public engage- ment exercise, the first working group considered question 1 from the deadly virus scenario and the second group considered question 2 (see Box 4). A note-taker and a spokesperson were chosen by each group, and after 10 minutes of discussion among members, the spokesperson reported to the larger group the basis of their discussion. This report-out included conclusions that individual group members came to, as well as potential issues of concern members had with definitions and details of mentioned roles. With regard to the process, the spokesperson also reported that the group quickly realized how important it is to frame the

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 33 question clearly so that a useful answer is obtained. The spokesperson acknowledged that they had differences in opinion based on different priorities among group members, but many eventually came to a general agreement for the question. The group also noted that it would be important to have a mechanism for each participant’s voice to be heard, and the importance of strong facilitation was stressed. BOX 4 Deadly Virus Scenario A new deadly virus has killed many thousands of people around the world. It is highly contagious and is now spreading quickly in the United States. There is only one known treatment for people who fall ill with this virus—an antiviral drug that is in short supply worldwide. It will take several months to make enough of this drug to treat most of the people in the country who need it. A vaccine to protect against this virus will not be ready for even longer, so the numbers of people sickened by the virus will continue to rise. The virus reached your community last week. People of all walks of life have started to fall ill, including health care and other emergency workers. Of the people who catch the virus, 20 percent will die if they are not treated with the drug. Although everyone is at risk of dying, experts have determined that among those who catch the virus, healthy young adults and pregnant women face the highest risk of death by far. Your community’s public health agency will receive its first supply of the antiviral drug in a few days, but only enough to treat fewer than half of the seriously ill patients who currently need this treatment. The agency will divide the drugs between the local hospitals and temporary clinics that have been set up to handle the overflow of patients. The hospitals and clinic will have to make do with whatever supply of the antiviral drug they receive—there is no other source from which they can get more at the present time. Patients who are chosen for treatment will need to take the drug for 7 days. The agency is now preparing guidelines to help hospitals and clinics decide which patients to treat with this limited supply of the antiviral drug. Discussion Questions 1. Should the agency’s guidelines give health care workers priority for treatment? What about other workers on whom society relies for saving lives (e.g., electrical power and water supply workers, police, firefighters, and other key workers)?  What are the best reasons for and against such a policy?  Does a health care worker’s specific role or contact with patients matter (e.g., patient care providers such as doctors and nurses; custodians or food service workers; managers or administrative staff)? 2. In order to save the most lives, the agency is planning to direct all hospitals and clinics to restrict use of the antiviral drug to sick patients

OCR for page 1
34 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING in the two high-risk groups (pregnant women and previously healthy young adults) until more of the drug becomes available  Do you agree with this policy? Why or why not?  Is it important for all hospitals and clinics in the city to follow the same rules when deciding which patients to treat? Why or why not? 3. It is now day 3 of treatment for patients in the first group to receive the drug. Two of those patients have not responded to treatment, and their doctors now believe that they will almost certainly die. If treatment is stopped now, there will still be enough of the drug left over to treat one more patient who might be saved. The families of the two dying patients will not agree to end the treatment.  Should the hospital go against their wishes and use the remaining doses to try to save another patient?  Why or why not? SOURCE: Shah presentation (March 14 2013) reprinted from IOM, 2012a. Shah and Li-Vollmer emphasized that when conducting a public engagement activity, it is very important to communicate clearly at the beginning of the discussion that everyone’s opinions are valued, but this does not mean that agreement among individual group members from any particular session will decide the final policy. For example, a workshop participant said that if the final policy did not seem to take into account the concerns expressed in the breakout session, attendees might be disappointed and feel that in the end, “the government is going to do what they want to do, no matter what I say.” Li-Vollmer noted that longer public engagement sessions give people the opportunity to hear a wider variety of perspectives and to realize that there are many ways of thinking about the particular issue, as was experienced during the workshop exercise. Breakout group members commented that it was interesting to hear about different perspectives, such as that of a professional policy maker, or a young adult without any children, and learn how their experiences shape their opinions. Li-Vollmer encouraged the inclusion of health care workers in engagement sessions that consider whether health care workers should be prioritized. She reiterated that, in her experience, although the public wanted to give priority to health care workers, many health care workers did not feel that they should have priority access to treatments, and they offered a variety of reasons why.

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 35 Q-Sort Simulation The second simulated public engagement exercise presented at the workshop was a Q-sort activity (see methodology described in Box 1), and Li-Vollmer presented a severe influenza pandemic scenario to set up the exercise (see Box 5). For the Q-sort, each workshop attendee was given a laminated board (see Figure 2) and a plastic bag full of cards printed with statements about how decisions should be made regarding allocation of lifesaving resources. For example, statement cards included “priority for medical care should be given to patients expected to live the longest,” and “it is important to give priority to certain groups. Otherwise, the hospital will fill up with people who get there first and those who get sick later may not get medical care.” Li-Vollmer explained that these statements reflect actual opinions given by both members of the general public and health care experts. BOX 5 Pandemic Influenza Scenario During a severe influenza pandemic, hospitals become extremely overcrowded and must attend to numerous people who are very ill with flu while still caring for the other incoming patients they see every day (e.g., accident victims, heart attack victims, pregnant women in labor). In addition to being beyond capacity, they are understaffed, as many health care workers are home sick themselves, and short on supplies. Not everyone can get treatment, and tough decisions must be made about who among the most sick will get access to lifesaving care. Those who cannot get lifesaving care will need to be given some kind of “comfort care” to ease their symptoms. Hospitals around the region, state, and country are all dealing with the same catastrophic situation. Assumptions for Q-sort exercise:  The focus of discussion is limited to access to very scarce lifesaving medical resources (e.g., intensive care unit beds, ventilators).  There are not enough of the lifesaving medical resources to treat everyone who needs them.  People who do not get lifesaving care will most likely die.  The majority of the population will survive the flu pandemic. SOURCE: Li-Vollmer presentation (March 14, 2013).

OCR for page 1
36 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING FIGURE 2 Q-sort board for ranking opinion statements printed on cards. SOURCE: Li-Vollmer presentation (March 14, 2013). With the scenario in mind, participants were instructed to sort the different statements into two roughly equal piles according to whether the stated opinions were least important or most important to them personally. Next, Li-Vollmer instructed participants to pick out the one statement from the “most important” pile that is the most important to them, and place it in column 9 (the brown column) on the board. Similarly, participants then picked from their “least important” pile the one statement that was the least important of all, and placed it in column 1 (the red column). Participants then worked through the rest of their cards, placing the next two most important statements in column 8 (grey) and the next two least important statements in column 2 (yellow), and so forth until their boards were filled. Cards within a column did not need to be in any particular order. Developing the Q-Sort Opinion Statement Cards Creating the opinion statement cards can be labor-intensive, Li- Vollmer said. According to the methodology, the opinion statements are developed by conducting a broad spectrum of interviews with people from all walks of life. The formulation of the opinions is also informed by a literature search, including articles in the popular press, about CSC and ethical principles. The opinion statements must then be carefully worded so that they are easily understandable and fit on a small card.

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 37 Statements are then tested and refined. Li-Vollmer referred participants to the Seattle and King County opinion toolkit website for the opinion statements used on the cards.14 The Value of the Q-Sort Approach for Public Engagement Exercises Traditionally (e.g., in psychiatric and psychological research), Q-sort is done as a one-on-one interaction where people sort cards and an interviewer talks to them about their choices as they sort. Li-Vollmer explained that Seattle and King County adapted the Q-sort methodology for group use. The Q-sort exercise itself is a methodical process of sorting through opinion statements, and the placement of the cards on each participant’s board is documented, both initially and later, if any changes are made after discussion. A critical part of the process is the discussion, Li-Vollmer said, and a lot of rich qualitative data are obtained from hearing people explain their choice of rankings. In public engagement exercises in Seattle and King County, the Q-sort is used as the first activity (after the pre-survey, overview of the issue, and the subject matter expert presentation). In many cases, Li- Vollmer said, this is the first time many participants have been exposed to these issues, and they have not had any prior chance to process their thoughts. Ranking the different opinions presented to them using the Q-sort method pushes them to really consider what is important to them and helps them crystallize their own opinions before they engage in group discussion. She added that participants are given the opportunity to modify their Q-sort board after the group discussion. The ranking process also stimulates conversation as participants discuss why they ranked a particular statement the way they did. This qualitative data allows for more subjective nuance than a survey that prompts participants to answer yes, no, or maybe, Li-Vollmer said. If desired, Q-sort can also be used for factor analysis, and she noted that there is free software available online that can analyze responses and identify groups with similar perspectives. Attendee Discussion of the Simulated Q-Sort Exercise Again, although workshop attendees discussed actual policy ques- tions about CSC as part of these simulated exercises, the purpose was not 14 See http://www.apctoolkits.com/vulnerablepopulation/knowing/public_engagement (accessed April 26, 2013).

OCR for page 1
38 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING to collect public opinion data on the issues, but rather for attendees to experience the process. As such, this summary of the discussion of the issues is included to illustrate the process of the act-ivities, and is not a presentation of valid public opinion data on the issues. After all boards were completed in the simulated exercise, Li- Vollmer asked for volunteers to share what card they put in the column 9 box (the statement they felt was the most important consideration when deciding who will get priority access to lifesaving resources [see Figure 3 for a sample Q-sort board completed at the workshop]). Demonstrating how to facilitate discussion, Li-Vollmer then asked, “Do you want to expound about why you chose that as your single most important consideration?” and “Did anybody else choose that as their most important consideration?” Participants explained the reasoning for their answers, and others chimed in with their own highest-priority rankings. Some participants cited the ethical principle of justice for their choices, as well as the need to have a rational process instead of an arbitrary distribution for their choices. FIGURE 3 Example of a Q-sort board completed during the simulated public engagement exercise at the workshop.

OCR for page 1
WORKSHOP SUMMARY 39 As facilitator, Li-Vollmer continued by asking if there were other opinions that should be considered but were not included on the cards. Attendees gave suggestions to add specific details to the opinion cards regarding the scenario to give participants a better idea of the operating picture. A participant also raised concerns about certain statements being highly subjective and potentially leading to discrimination against certain demographics. During discussion, many participants voiced their ap- preciation for being a subject in this type of activity and having an opportunity to see how their opinions matched up with those of their peers in the scenario and to hear needs and opinions different from their own. FINAL REMARKS The above exercises gave workshop participants hands-on knowledge of just a few examples of public engagement methodologies and pro- cesses that can be successfully used in their own communities. Through practical application, these exercises built upon the workshop’s goal of providing attendees with theories and practices, lessons learned, and the overall challenges of public engagement. Public engagement is an important aspect of disaster preparedness, especially with important decisions and policy matters that may be controversial, and gives local health and community leaders essential public input on complex problems. Participants appreciate the opportunity to be heard, as well as to hear what is happening in their own community. When done well, Shah concluded, public engagement can yield tremendously useful information for all parties. Different methodologies (e.g., scenario-based group discussion, individual Q-sort activity15) can be used in the same public engagement session, Shah said. For example, Harris County used Q-sort to assess opinions on allocation of vaccines and antivirals and facilitated group discussions for allocation of ventilators. There are advantages to each methodology, depending on the situation. There are also different techniques that can be used for the different methodologies. Voting during a community conversation, for example, can be done using the clicker audience response system or by simply having participants put stickers in different columns on poster boards. Conducting these activities, various speakers pointed out, can help to inform policy 15 See Box 1 for details on Q-sort methodology.

OCR for page 1
40 ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN CRITICAL DISASTER PLANNING decisions and educate the community, as well as increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of local disaster plans. Solutions might not be identified in just one or two meetings, but starting the conversations and building strong stakeholder relationships in the planning stage are vital to efficient and successful execution of disaster plans and communication when a disaster occurs.