Public health emergencies, such as infectious disease outbreaks, floods, and terrorist attacks, impact societies severely but are relatively rare for individual countries. However, this national rarity provides an impetus to systematically learn from emergencies when they do occur, so as to strengthen public health emergency preparedness and response planning. 1
One such learning approach is to conduct an after action review (AAR), or a lessons learned document. These documents are completed after a public health emergency has occurred and draw on quantitative and qualitative methods to identify strengths and weaknesses in the public health emergency preparedness system. By addressing any weaknesses identified, they aim to improve preparedness, response, and recovery capacities and capabilities, ultimately lessening the impact of future incidents.Reference Stoto 2 , Reference Geary 3
Typically, documentation and other quantitative fact-finding methods help establish a skeleton timeline of events, whereas different forms of qualitative investigation, such as personal testimony, provide richer insights into how and why events unfolded. Combined, these approaches aim to establish the root causes of the event and to identify what lessons can be learned for the future.Reference Stoto 2 – Reference Stoto 9
Despite the crucial role of AARs in linking the past with the present and future, there is no widely used or standardized approach to conducting AARs of public health emergencies. Particularly, there is no indication of whether insights gained are valid or based on robust methodologies. 1 , Reference Stoto 9
This literature review aimed to identify the range of methods used to produce AARs to improve emergency preparedness planning and to develop appraisal tools to compare their methodological reporting and validity standards, with a focus on qualitative methods.
METHODS
Literature Search
We searched biomedical databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus) and gray literature sources (Google Advanced, Google Scholar) for AARs that described an enacted response to an emergency (theoretical or “table-top” exercises were excluded), were within the geographic scope of the literature review (the European Union, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States), and were published in English from January 2000 to August 2015.
Search strategies were structured around 2 major concepts: AARs and emergency preparedness. Searches combined free text and thesaurus terms (where available), including synonyms such as “post-event analysis” and “critical incident review” and techniques used within AARs such as “facilitated look back” and “root-cause analysis” (Supplemental Information [SI] 1). Additional search terms and synonyms were identified by scanning the abstracts of articles identified through a scoping search. Additional AARs were identified by searching the Endnote Library for a previous review undertaken for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), looking for evaluations of emergency response. 10 , Reference O’Brien, Taft and Geary 11
Reviews were sifted for relevance first on title and abstract and then on full-text review (Figure 1, PRISMA diagram). Studies excluded at the full-text stage can be found in SI-2.
Figure 1 PRISMA diagram
Development of Appraisal Tools
We developed 2 appraisal tools to systematically document the methods used in AARs, to compare methodological reporting and validity between diverse AARs, and to act as a benchmark of theoretical best practice.
We adapted the approach of WoloshynowychReference Woloshynowych, Rogers and Taylor-Adams 12 – which related to the analysis of after actions in health care – to an emergency public health context by triangulating it with 9 contemporary AAR templates.Reference Piltch-Loeb, Nelson and Kraemer 5 , 13 – 20 The templates were identified through targeted scoping searches in Google, using synonyms for AARs and templates. These templates were multi-sectorial, coming from after action reports, a significant event analysis, and peer assessments in the fields of US national defense, 14 US state government, 13 UK medicolegal, 17 Canadian health care insurance, 20 international emergency public health,Reference Piltch-Loeb, Nelson and Kraemer 5 , 16 a UK hospital,Reference Taylor-Adams and Vincent 15 and patient safety agencies (See SI-2). 18 , 19 Further tool modifications were made in consultation with an expert advisor to increase its relevance to emergency public health. This resulted in a 50-item appraisal tool (SI-3).
Adapting the approach of Piltch-Loeb,Reference Piltch-Loeb, Nelson and Kraemer 5 we developed an additional 11-point summary tool of factors that boosted methodological rigor in case study and qualitative data collection and analysis.
The original Piltch-Loeb 10-point tool remained intact with minor revisions in definitions to better reflect the context of AARs in emergency public health. We added an 11th factor to capture whether the AAR had ultimately achieved its aim of uncovering the root causes of preparedness, response and recovery activities, rather than more superficial causes. Definitions of the 11 points are included in SI-4.
Appraising the After Action Reviews
The 50-item appraisal tool (SI-3) and 11-item summary measure (SI-4) were applied sequentially to each AAR. First, the 50-item tool was used to systematically document the methods undertaken by each AAR, before being summarized in the 11-item measure, allowing for a simpler comparison of methodology and validity across diverse reviews.
AARs were reviewed against each item on the summary validity tool and assigned one of 3 codes. Fully met (++): These criteria have been fully and often comprehensively met, and we have little doubt that these criteria have been met. Partially met (+): The criteria have been met in some regards, but there is significant doubt about the comprehensiveness or there are clear elements missing, preventing a higher rating. Not met (-): These criteria are not met or have not been reported.
A sample of 3 AARs was independently coded by a second reviewer to test the reliability of the coding instrument and to clarify initial rating definitions. The second rater was blind to the first rater’s scores and rationales. Given the size of the sample, inter-coder agreement was not calculated. Differences between the 2 raters were discussed and changes agreed by consensus. This led to revisions in the wording of some criteria and scoring guidance to improve clarity and therefore scoring consistency. Definitions of the criteria and additional notes used to guide rating decisions are described in SI-3.
RESULTS
Overview
Our search identified 24 published AAR documents, relating to 22 distinct AARs (Table 1).
Table 1 Summary of 22 Included AARs
* A risk evaluation method that can be used to analyze and demonstrate causal relationships in high risk scenarios.
The reviews covered national and international responses to the 2009 A(H1N1) influenza pandemic (n = 8),Reference Masotti, Green and Birtwhistle 21 – 28 terrorist bombing incidents (n = 5), 29 – 33 industrial explosions (n = 6), 34 – Reference Paltrinieri, Dechy and Salzano 39 hurricanes (n = 2),Reference Knox 40 ,Reference Brevard, Weintraub and Aiken 41 chemical contamination of drinking water (n = 1),Reference Terenzini 42 a heat wave (n = 1),Reference Adrot 43 and large-scale flooding (n = 1) (see Table 1).Reference Pitt 44
Appraisal of After Action Reviews
There was great diversity in the structure, scope, and level of methodological reporting in the 24 reviews identified, potentially reflecting a lack of a standardized approach (Table 2).Reference Masotti, Green and Birtwhistle 21 – Reference Pitt 44 The majority drew heavily on qualitative methods, but the use of established techniques to ensure rigor was routinely missing from the published reports.
Table 2 Summary Validity Measures Reporting for 22 AARs (Including 2 Annexes Appraised Alongside the AAR)Reference Masotti, Green and Birtwhistle 21 – Reference Pitt 44
* Overall validity score based on the following scoring: (++) = 2; (+) = 1; (-) = 0.
Validity boosting measures most frequently reported in the 24 reviews included spending adequate time to observe the setting, people, and incident documentation; sampling a diverse range of views; using multiple sources of data collection; and utilizing multiple perspectives during the analysis.Reference Masotti, Green and Birtwhistle 21 – Reference Pitt 44 However, these techniques were generally reported in brief, with few reviews fully meeting all 4 basic validity dimensions.
The criteria that were most commonly unmet in these reports were acknowledging a theoretical basis for the review methodology; describing how the reviewers handled discordant evidence; having an external peer-review process; and ensuring respondents to the reviews had an opportunity to validate that their views had been reflected accurately in the final analysis and report (see Table 2).
The majority of AARs showing depth and insight (9 fully met this validity measure) also clearly reported using multiple data sources (7 of 9) and sustained engagement (5 of 9). Other AARs demonstrated depth and insight without reporting clear methods (see Table 2). 29 , 34 , 35 , Reference Pitt 44
Suggestions
Based on the systematic assessment of methods and validity measures in 24 AARs, we suggest 11 measures to improve the reporting and validity of reviews more widely (Table 3).
Table 3 Eleven Validity-Enhancing Considerations for Improving Review and Reporting of Public Health Emergency Events
PHEP = public health emergency preparedness.
* The development of an evidence-based minimum reporting standard for after action reviews, similar to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for randomized controlled trials, may facilitate this process and comparisons between AARs. See http://www.consort-statement.org/.
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this is the first review to systematically document methods used in public health emergency preparedness AARs across a range of hazards and to formulate suggestions to improve future practice based on principles of qualitative research best practice.
The strengths of this review include our inclusive definition of an AAR, our inclusion of non-health-care specific after actions and reporting templates, and the development of tools rooted in after action methodological research. These tools were applied to a variety of real-world AARs in the field of emergency preparedness spanning multiple hazard types.
The most common data collection methods used by the 24 AARs were document review (typically preparedness plans and protocols compared to execution), focus groups, formal public consultations, in-depth interviews, public discussion forums, questionnaires, site visits, and workshops.
Most reviews (17 of 24) did not report a theoretical framework to guide investigation; of those that did, all reported a comparative or case study methodology. This represents a small fraction of the diverse range of approaches available to after action investigators, including the after action techniqueReference Flanaghan 4 , Reference Serrat 8 ; after action analysisReference Schwester 7 , 45 ; root-cause analysisReference Berry and Krizek 46 – Reference Singleton, Debastiani and Rose 48 ; facilitated look-backsReference Aledort, Lurie and Ricci 49 ; peer assessment approachReference Piltch-Loeb, Nelson and Kraemer 6 ; realist evaluationReference Piltch-Loeb, Nelson and Kraemer 5 , Reference Stoto 9 ; bow-tie analysisReference Paltrinieri, Dechy and Salzano 39 ; and serious case reviews. 50
Underlying methodologies were frequently unreported, so the report validity remained ambiguous. Although a lack of reporting of basic methods to safeguard validity does not necessarily imply that they were not considered or followed, it does significantly increase doubt surrounding the methodological basis of the review and the validity of its conclusions.
Limitations
Our review searched for reports from a diverse range of after actions, but the analyzed sample was small (n = 24) and subject to reporting and selection bias, and may not represent the full spectrum of incident reports available. For example, we excluded 16 studies with insufficient methods for analysis (see SI-2: Excluded Studies) and all reviews not published in English.
Three of the 24 included reviews were used to test and develop early versions of both appraisal tools before their final application to the remaining 21 reports, further reducing the number of independent reviews appraised.
Most AAR reports were not clear on how their data analysis led to generalizable insights by reviewers or how discordant information was handled. 22 , 28 , 29 As such, it was not clear to what extent certain views or data had been explored or discounted, for example, if they did not fit with the emerging researcher consensus. This risked introducing perception bias into the analysis and conclusions drawn.
CONCLUSIONS
We suggest that the lack of methodological reporting provides a strong case for the development of evidence-based minimum reporting standard for AARs, akin to the CONSORT statement for randomized controlled trials. These standards could benefit after action reports in 2 ways. First, they may ensure that a wider range of robust methods is considered before and during the review, and, second, that methods are more clearly reported in the end report itself, allowing an external assessment of validity. The 11-point summary tool presented here allows a simple validity comparison to be made across a range of diverse AARs, which could be further developed and refined in the future.
It is noteworthy that critical incident registries have been adopted in transport, health care, and workplace safety industries, but not in emergency preparedness.Reference Piltch-Loeb, Nelson and Kraemer 5 We thus advocate an AAR registry (similar in nature to the US government’s Lessons Learned Information Sharing program) in Europe, to facilitate cross-border learning that will further strengthen emergency preparedness.Reference Savoia, Agboola and Biddinger 51 The 11-point summary validity tool presented here could contribute to such an initiative by promoting an AAR design that is as robust and credible as possible.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://10.1017/dmp.2018.82
Acknowledgment and Author Contributions
This publication is based upon a report produced by Bazian Ltd and commissioned by the ECDC under Direct Service Contract ECD.5860. Robert Davies provided input into project design, performed data extraction, performed data synthesis, and coauthored this manuscript; Elly Vaughan managed the project at Bazian, provided input into project design, designed and ran literature searches, performed data extraction, contributed to the synthesis, and coauthored this manuscript; Dr Robert Cook provided input into project design, reviewed draft reports, and provided project oversight; Dr Graham Fraser, Dr Massimo Ciotti, and Dr Jonathan Suk initiated the study and commissioned the work, provided technical guidance throughout the study, and coauthored this manuscript; Dr Katie Geary provided expert advice throughout the project design and execution, including refining the appraisal tools for a public health emergency context.
Open access
