ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic placed intense pressure on nursing regulatory bodies to ensure an adequate healthcare workforce while maintaining public safety. Purpose: Our objectives were to analyze regulatory bodies' responses during the pandemic, examine how nursing regulators conceptualize the public interest during a public health crisis, and explore the influence of a public health crisis on the balancing of regulatory principles. We aimed to develop a clearer understanding of regulating during a crisis by identifying themes within regulatory responses. Methods: We conducted a qualitative comparative case study examining the pandemic responses of eight nursing regulators in three Canadian provinces and three U.S. states. Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with 19 representatives of nursing regulatory bodies and 206 publicly available documents and analyzed thematically. Results: Five themes were constructed from the data: (1) risk-based responses to reduce regulatory burden; (2) agility and flexibility in regulatory pandemic responses; (3) working with stakeholders for a systems-based approach; (4) valuing consistency in regulatory approaches across jurisdictions; and (5) the pandemic as a catalyst for innovation. Specifically, we identified that the meaning of "public interest" in the context of high workforce demand was a key consideration for regulators. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the intensity of effort involved in nursing regulatory responses and the significant contribution of nursing regulation to the healthcare system's pandemic response. Our results also indicate a shift in thinking around broader public interest issues, beyond the conduct and competence of individual nurses, to include pressing societal issues. Regulators are beginning to grapple with these longer-term issues and policy tensions.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Many health systems screen patients for social determinants of health and refer patients with social needs to community service organizations for assistance. We developed a framework based on sequential steps to evaluate this process. METHODS: We reviewed efforts by The MetroHealth System in Cleveland, Ohio and identified 6 sequential steps: patient screened, has social needs, consents to referral to a service organization, referral placed, referral accepted, and referral outcome. Referral outcomes were categorized as resolved (organization provided requested service or patient self-resolved problem), or unresolved (patient unable to be contacted or declined assistance). We then determined the numbers of patients with food insecurity who completed each step, how completion differed by patient characteristics and service organization, and reasons for failure to complete specific steps. RESULTS: We used the framework to evaluate screening and assistance steps among 5741 patients who attended a COVID-19 vaccine clinic from February 15-March 31, 2021 and were followed through April 30, 2021. The percentage of patients who completed each step ranged from 17-98%. Step completion differed by patient age, patient race, and clinic. Of 360 referrals accepted by community organizations, 98 (27%) were resolved. The most common reasons for unresolved referrals were inability of service organization to contact patients (151), no reason stated (71), and patients declined service (30). CONCLUSIONS: A framework based on sequential steps may be used to evaluate social determinants of health screening and assistance programs. Further work is needed to address reasons for failure to complete steps, to include patient perspectives, and to determine long-term outcomes.