Friday, April 19, 2024
4/19/2024
SUMMARY/ABSTRACT During a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid dissemination of information to clinicians about emerging innovations is critical to ensuring the best outcomes for patients. However, little is known about how clinicians obtain information about innovations make decisions about implementation and de-implementation during uncertain times. As SARS-CoV-2 made its initial, rapid spread across the nation, clinicians feared that the impending surge of critically ill patients would overwhelm capacity, causing patient deaths due to a lack of ventilators and other essential resources. Additionally, shortages of personal protective equipment posed a challenge to following the usual standards to protect clinicians from infection. In a massive response to prevent worst-case scenarios from materializing, emergency department (ED) staff have rapidly innovated to deliver effective care, protect frontline workers, and ensure a sustainable supply of personal protective equipment. In response to these unusual conditions, ED clinicians turned to nontraditional sources of information—for example, Twitter, Facebook, podcasts, and pre- print journal publications—to learn about innovations they could use to care for COVID-19 patients in EDs. While these sources of information provided easy access to information about innovations, they also spread misinformation. Little research has been done to optimize dissemination and implementation of innovations during a public health emergency. Before the pandemic, an expansion of online platforms facilitating exchange of information about innovations had already occurred, and many more exist now. Information is also shared through professional societies and also through social media. But the understanding of the diffusion of innovations among EDs during the pandemic is currently limited due to the volume of sharing that happened during COVID-19; the urgency and fear associated with these innovations; and the need for deimplementation of interventions that were found to be ineffective or even dangerous. It is not clear how these processed happened and whether they might have differed based on the demographics of ED clinicians or the communities and populations they serve. A comprehensive evaluation of the flow of innovations will lead to insights into how disseminators and implementers can improve practices during pandemic and rapidly evolving emergencies and also how processes can be optimized for more steady-state conditions. Our study incorporates a strong interdisciplinary and mixed methods approach. Our strong team will work with study partners representing emergency physicians and nurses and experts in other disciplines in the ED. Study methods combine advanced natural language processing techniques with interviews (Aim 1), focus groups with a survey of ED professionals (Aim 2), and systematic synthesis of results to identify strategies for improving diffusion of ED care innovations (Aim 3). The study will also provide results in actionable formats, such as a toolkit of dissemination and implementation strategies.
HHS’ Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) website provides access to detailed descriptions of grants, loans, aggregated direct payments and other types of financial assistance awarded by the HHS Operating Divisions (OPDIVs) and the Office of the Secretary Staff Divisions (STAFFDIVs).
