Enhancing Reporting of After Action Reviews of Public Health Emergencies to Strengthen Preparedness: A Literature Review and Methodology Appraisal

ABSTRACT Objective This literature review aimed to identify the range of methods used in after action reviews (AARs) of public health emergencies and to develop appraisal tools to compare methodological reporting and validity standards. Methods A review of biomedical and gray literature identified key approaches from AAR methodological research, real-world AARs, and AAR reporting templates. We developed a 50-item tool to systematically document AAR methodological reporting and a linked 11-item summary tool to document validity. Both tools were used sequentially to appraise the literature included in this study. Results This review included 24 highly diverse papers, reflecting the lack of a standardized approach. We observed significant divergence between the standards described in AAR and qualitative research literature, and real-world AAR practice. The lack of reporting of basic methods to ensure validity increases doubt about the methodological basis of an individual AAR and the validity of its conclusions. Conclusions The main limitations in current AAR methodology and reporting standards may be addressed through our 11 validity-enhancing recommendations. A minimum reporting standard for AARs could help ensure that findings are valid and clear for others to learn from. A registry of AARs, based on a common reporting structure, may further facilitate shared learning. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:618-625)

[1]  C. Vincent,et al.  Systems analysis of clinical incidents: the London protocol , 2004 .

[2]  Jonathan E. Suk,et al.  Best practices in ranking communicable disease threats: a literature review, 2015. , 2016, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[3]  M. Stoto,et al.  A Peer Assessment Approach for Learning from Public Health Emergencies , 2014, Public health reports.

[4]  K. Berry,et al.  Root cause analysis in response to a "near miss". , 2000, Journal for Healthcare Quality.

[5]  K. Brohi,et al.  Reduction in critical mortality in urban mass casualty incidents: analysis of triage, surge, and resource use after the London bombings on July 7, 2005 , 2006, The Lancet.

[6]  Paul D. Biddinger,et al.  Use of After Action Reports (AARs) to Promote Organizational and Systems Learning in Emergency Preparedness , 2012, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[7]  Nicolas Dechy,et al.  Lessons Learned from Toulouse and Buncefield Disasters: From Risk Analysis Failures to the Identification of Atypical Scenarios Through a Better Knowledge Management , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  Christa-Marie Singleton,et al.  An analysis of root cause identification and continuous quality improvement in public health H1N1 after-action reports. , 2014, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[9]  Claire Connolly Knox.  Analyzing after-action reports from Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina: repeated, modified, and newly created recommendations. , 2013, Journal of emergency management.

[10]  J. Braithwaite,et al.  Managing the scope and impact of root cause analysis recommendations. , 2008, Journal of health organization and management.

[11]  Elsa Lee,et al.  Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program , 2008 .

[12]  Richard W. Schwester,et al.  Handbook of Critical Incident Analysis , 2012 .

[13]  Kobi Peleg,et al.  Leadership During the Boston Marathon Bombings: A Qualitative After-Action Review , 2015, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness.

[14]  Beth R. Crisp,et al.  Integrated assessment : new assessment methods evaluation of an innovative method of assessment-critical incident analysis , 2005 .

[15]  M. Stoto.  Measuring and assessing public health emergency preparedness. , 2013, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[16]  Julia E. Aledort,et al.  Facilitated Look-Backs: A New Quality Improvement Tool for Management of Routine Annual and Pandemic Influenza , 2006 .

[17]  S Taylor-Adams,et al.  The investigation and analysis of critical incidents and adverse events in healthcare. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[18]  S. Brevard,et al.  Analysis of disaster response plans and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: lessons learned from a level I trauma center. , 2008, The Journal of trauma.

[19]  J. C. Flanagan.  Psychological Bulletin THE CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE , 2022 .

[20]  M. Pitt.  Learning lessons from the 2007 floods , 2008 .

[21]  M. Leclercq,et al.  ‘Lessons learned’: A comparative case study analysis of an emergency department response to two burns disasters , 2012, Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA.

[22]  E. Stern,et al.  Assessment Report on EU-wide Pandemic Vaccine Strategies , 2010 .

[23]  D. Mozingo,et al.  Reduction in critical mortality in urban mass casualty incidents: analysis of triage, surge, and resource use after the London bombings on July 7, 2005 , 2008 .

[24]  K. Moore,et al.  pH1N1 - a comparative analysis of public health responses in Ontario to the influenza outbreak, public health and primary care: lessons learned and policy suggestions , 2013, BMC Public Health.