Responsiveness

Responsiveness in healthcare affects psychological safety, physical safety, customer service and quality. 

Responsiveness is often dropped, or not followed through, or placed as a one-time play. This is an unfortunate allowance especially during urgent and emergent threats.

Hold organizations accountable and evaluate agencies on responsiveness, across the international borders that house agency offices. To standardize this, keep it simple:  

Quantity 

How often are concerns raised to the organization, and to global health, by experts in medical fields? In other fields?

How often are concerns raised by general members of the public? 

How many concerns are raised and what are the types? 

What is the average response time, defined by subsequent meetings or follow through?

What is the average response time, defined by reciprocated communication to those who raised concerns?

How often is anticipatory response practiced? 

Quality 

What types of concerns can be anticipated, expected or automatically categorized?

How are “other” fields sorted when examining types of issues or comments raised to health organizations? 

What is the criteria for advancing a concern or issue to a greater panel? Who determines or facilitates advancement of a concern and how is biased removed from decision-making?

How is anticipatory responsiveness being defined and shaped in health systems?    

How are failures to respond examined and managed? How is data recalled for evaluation of the organization’s responsiveness? 

Responsiveness can be examined with quantity and quality, and it should be a major element to global health operations moving forward. 

We could begin by asking the question of how many alarms for a specific threat were raised, and what was done about it? We could apply this question to a general issue, to research practices or to a global leadership communication around the pharmaceutical industry. Or, we could let the data on unresolved responses lead the way.