Resource Library

[This is an excerpt.] The ability to deliver high-quality primary care depends on the availability, accessibility, and competence of a primary care workforce assembled in interprofessional teams to effectively meet the health care needs of diverse care-seekers, families, and communities. People with access to high-quality primary care have better health outcomes, including improvements in chronic disease control, receipt of more preventive services, fewer preventable emergency room visits and hospitalizations, improved health equity, improved quality of life, and longer lives (Basu et al., 2019; Shi, 2012; Starfield et al., 2005). These better outcomes are pronounced among the poor and underserved (Beck et al., 2016; Phillips and Bazemore, 2010; Regalado and Halfon, 2001; Seid and Stevens, 2005). [To read more, click View Resource.]

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Health Organizations: Improving Workload & Workflows (Optimizing Teams).

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Professional Associations: Spotlights: Professional Associations Relational Strategies (Empowering Worker & Learner Voice).

‍

‍

[This is an excerpt.] Direct Care Workers in the United States: Key Facts provides a new annual snapshot on the direct care workforce, including its demographics, occupational roles, job quality challenges, and projected job openings. The report includes detailed overviews of three segments of this workforce: home care workers, residential care aides, and nursing assistants in nursing homes. [To read more, click View Resource.]

‍

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Government: Aligning Values & Improving Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (Improving Diversity, Equity & Inclusion).

‍

‍

OBJECTIVE: Public reporting is a policy to improve quality and increase data transparency. The objective was to examine the association between publicly available staffing ratios and the Five-Star Quality Ratings from Nursing Home Compare over time. DESIGN: Panel data analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: About 146 nursing homes with complete quarterly data in New Jersey between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. METHODS: Using data from the State of New Jersey Department of Health and Nursing Home Compare, staff-to-resident ratios were trended for registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and certified nursing assistants by shift and overtime. Panel data analysis was used to test the association between the ratios and the ratings. RESULTS: Compared to 2012, staffing ratios improved slightly for licensed practical nurses but not for registered nurses or certified nursing assistants in 2019 (P < .001). The number of residents assigned doubled at night for all personnel. During the day and evening shifts, registered nurse staffing was significantly associated with the Nursing Home Compare staffing rating (P < .01) but not the overall rating. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Decreasing the number of residents assigned to a registered nurse in NHs results in an increase in staffing ratings. Mandatory public reporting holds nursing homes accountable for quality outcomes but does not improve staffing ratios. Quality resident care is the cumulative result of multiple measures inclusive of staffing; therefore, administrators should continue to focus on improving quality in NHs, which may improve staffing ratios across shifts.

‍

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Government: Optimizing Workload & Workflows (Support & Ensure Safe Staffing).

‍

‍

BACKGROUND: Substantial evidence indicates that patient outcomes are more favourable in hospitals with better nurse staffing. One policy designed to achieve better staffing is minimum nurse-to-patient ratio mandates, but such policies have rarely been implemented or evaluated. In 2016, Queensland (Australia) implemented minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in selected hospitals. We aimed to assess the effects of this policy on staffing levels and patient outcomes and whether both were associated. METHODS: For this prospective panel study, we compared Queensland hospitals subject to the ratio policy (27 intervention hospitals) and those that discharged similar patients but were not subject to ratios (28 comparison hospitals) at two timepoints: before implementation of ratios (baseline) and 2 years after implementation (post-implementation). We used standardised Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data, linked with death records, to obtain data on patient characteristics and outcomes (30-day mortality, 7-day readmissions, and length of stay [LOS]) for medical-surgical patients and survey data from 17 010 medical-surgical nurses in the study hospitals before and after policy implementation. Survey data from nurses were used to measure nurse staffing and, after linking with standardised patient data, to estimate the differential change in outcomes between patients in intervention and comparison hospitals, and determine whether nurse staffing changes were related to it. FINDINGS: We included 231 902 patients (142 986 in intervention hospitals and 88 916 in comparison hospitals) assessed at baseline (2016) and 257 253 patients (160 167 in intervention hospitals and 97 086 in comparison hospitals) assessed in the post-implementation period (2018). After implementation, mortality rates were not significantly higher than at baseline in comparison hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.97-1.17, p=0.18), but were significantly lower than at baseline in intervention hospitals (0.89, 0.84-0.95, p=0.0003). From baseline to post-implementation, readmissions increased in comparison hospitals (1.06, 1.01-1.12, p=0.015), but not in intervention hospitals (1.00, 0.95-1.04, p=0.92). Although LOS decreased in both groups post-implementation, the reduction was more pronounced in intervention hospitals than in comparison hospitals (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99, p=0.010). Staffing changed in hospitals from baseline to post-implementation: of the 36 hospitals with reliable staffing measures, 30 (83%) had more than 4-5 patients per nurse at baseline, with the number decreasing to 21 (58%) post-implementation. The majority of change was at intervention hospitals, and staffing improvements by one patient per nurse produced reductions in mortality (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-0.99, p=0.045), readmissions (0.93, 0.89-0.97, p<0.0001), and LOS (IRR 0.97, 0.94-0.99, p=0.035). In addition to producing better outcomes, the costs avoided due to fewer readmissions and shorter LOS were more than twice the cost of the additional nurse staffing. INTERPRETATION: Minimum nurse-to-patient ratio policies are a feasible approach to improve nurse staffing and patient outcomes with good return on investment. FUNDING: Queensland Health, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Nursing Research.

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Health Organizations: Improving Workload & Workflows (Safe & Appropriate Staffing) AND Actionable Strategies for Government: Optimizing Workload & Workflows (Support & Ensure Safe Staffing).

‍

‍

[This is an excerpt.] In our article, “10 bold steps to prevent burnout”, we promoted using institutional metrics, improving work conditions, fostering career development, and legitimizing self-care. Yet physician burnout rates have climbed inexorably from 27% in 2000 to 43% in 2019 and close to 50% during the pandemic. There is now a rapidly developing focus on moral injury (MI), with trauma from adverse experiences workers feel powerless to stop. Despite all that we know about burnout and MI, the trauma, regrettably, continues. [To read more, click View Resource.]

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic coupled with health disparities have highlighted the disproportionate burden of disease among Black, Hispanic, and Native American (i.e., American Indian or Alaska Native) populations. Increasing transparency around the representation of these populations in health care professions may encourage efforts to increase diversity that could improve cultural competence among health care professionals and reduce health disparities. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the racial/ethnic diversity of the current health care workforce and the graduate pipeline for 10 health care professions and to evaluate whether the diversity of the pipeline suggests greater representation of Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations in the future. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used weighted data from the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) to compare the diversity of 10 health care occupations (advanced practice registered nurses, dentists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, physical therapists, physician assistants, physicians, registered nurses, respiratory therapists, and speech-language pathologists) with the diversity of the US working-age population, and 2019 data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) were used to compare the diversity of graduates with that of the US population of graduation age. Data from the IPEDS included all awards and degrees conferred between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, in the US. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A health workforce diversity index (diversity index) was developed to compare the racial/ethnic diversity of the 10 health care professions (or the graduates in the pipeline) analyzed with the racial/ethnic diversity of the current working-age population (or average student-age population). For the current workforce, the index was the ratio of current workers in a health occupation to the total working-age population by racial/ethnic group. For new graduates, the index was the ratio of recent graduates to the population aged 20 to 35 years by racial/ethnic group. A value equal to 1 indicated equal representation of the racial/ethnic groups in the current workforce (or pipeline) compared with the working-age population. RESULTS: The study sample obtained from the 2019 ACS comprised a weighted total count of 148 358 252 individuals aged 20 to 65 years (White individuals: 89 756 689; Black individuals: 17 916 227; Hispanic individuals: 26 953 648; and Native American individuals: 1 108 404) who were working or searching for work and a weighted total count of 71 608 009 individuals aged 20 to 35 years (White individuals: 38 995 242; Black individuals: 9 830 765; Hispanic individuals: 15 257 274; and Native American individuals: 650 221) in the educational pipeline. Among the 10 professions assessed, the mean diversity index for Black people was 0.54 in the current workforce and in the educational pipeline. In 5 of 10 health care professions, representation of Black graduates was lower than representation in the current workforce (e.g., occupational therapy: 0.31 vs 0.50). The mean diversity index for Hispanic people was 0.34 in the current workforce; it improved to 0.48 in the educational pipeline but remained lower than 0.50 in 6 of 10 professions, including physical therapy (0.33). The mean diversity index for Native American people was 0.54 in the current workforce and increased to 0.57 in the educational pipeline. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that Black, Hispanic, and Native American people were underrepresented in the 10 health care professions analyzed. Although some professions had greater diversity than others and there appeared to be improvement among graduates in the educational pipeline compared with the current workforce, additional policies are needed to further strengthen and support a workforce that is more representative of the population.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify new challenges to organizational listening posed by a global pandemic and how organizations are overcoming those barriers. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The researchers conducted 30 in-depth interviews with US communication management professionals. FINDINGS: Communication management professionals value listening, but do not always make it the priority that it merits. They listed lack of desire of senior management, time, and trust of employees as barriers to effective organizational listening. The global COVID pandemic has made it more challenging to connect to employees working remotely and to observe nonverbal cues that are essential in communication. Organizations are adapting by using more frequent pulse surveys, video conferencing technology and mobile applications. Most importantly, this pandemic has enhanced moral sensitivity and empathy leading organizations to make decisions based on ethical considerations. RESERACH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The researchers examined organizational listening applying employee-organization relationships (EOR) theory and found that trust is essential. Trust can be enhanced through building relationships with employees, ethical listening and closing the feedback loop by communicating how employers are using the feedback received by employees to make a positive change. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Communication managers need to place a higher priority on listening to employees. Their listening efforts need to be authentic, morally autonomous or open-minded, and empathetic to respect the genuine concerns of employees and how organizational decisions will affect them. Listening is essential to serving as an ethical and effective strategic counselor. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The study examines organizational listening in the context of a global pandemic.

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Health Organizations: Empowering Worker & Learner Voice (Worker & Learner Engagement).

BACKGROUND: Prior studies demonstrated that wage disparities exist across race and ethnicity within selected health care occupations. Wage disparities may negatively affect the industry’s ability to recruit and retain a diverse workforce throughout the career ladder. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether wage disparities by race and ethnicity persist across health care occupations and whether disparities vary across the skill spectrum. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 2011–2018 data from the Current Population Survey using Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition regression methods to identify sources of variation in wage disparities. Separate models were run for 9 health care occupations. SUBJECTS: Employed individuals 18 and older working in health care occupations, categorized by race/ethnicity. MEASURES: Annual wages were predicted as a function of race/ethnicity, age, sex, marital status, having a child under 5 in the household, living in a metro area, highest education attained, and usual hours worked. RESULTS: Non-Hispanics consistently made more than Hispanic licensed practical/vocational nurses (LPNs/LVNs), aides/assistants, technicians, and community-based workers. Asian/Pacific Islanders consistently made more than Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Multiracial individuals across occupations except physicians, advanced practitioners, or therapists. Asian/Pacific Islanders only made significantly less when compared with White physicians, but more than White advanced practitioners, registered nurses, LPNs/LVNs, and aides/assistants. Based on observed attributes, Black registered nurses, LPNs/LVNs, and aides/assistants were predicted to make more than their White peers, but unexplained variation negated these gains. CONCLUSIONS: Many wage gaps remained unexplained based on measured factors warranting further study. Addressing wage disparities is critical to advance in careers and reduce job turnover.

‍

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Health Organizations: Meaningful Rewards& Recognition (Adequate Compensation)

‍

‍

[This is an excerpt.] By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 1104, 3301, and 3302 of title 5, United States Code, and in order to strengthen the Federal workforce by promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1.  Policy.  On my first day in office, I signed Executive Order 13985 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government), which established that affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government.  To further advance equity within the Federal Government, this order establishes that it is the policy of my Administration to cultivate a workforce that draws from the full diversity of the Nation. [To read more, click View Resource.]

‍

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Government: Aligning Values & Improving Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (Improving Diversity, Equity & Inclusion).

‍

‍

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed increased strain on health care workers and disrupted childcare and schooling arrangements in unprecedented ways. As substantial gender inequalities existed in medicine before the pandemic, physician mothers may be at particular risk for adverse professional and psychological consequences. To assess gender differences in work-family factors and mental health among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. This prospective cohort study included 276 US physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study since their first year of residency training. Physicians who had participated in the primary study as interns during the 2007 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009 academic years and opted into a secondary longitudinal follow-up study were invited to complete an online survey in August 2018 and August 2020.Work-family experience included 3 single-item questions and the Work and Family Conflict Scale, and mental health symptoms included the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 scale. The primary outcomes were work-to-family and family-to-work conflict and depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms during August 2020. Depressive symptoms between 2018 (before the COVID-19 pandemic) and 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) were compared by gender. Among 215 physician parents who completed the August 2020 survey, 114 (53.0%) were female and the weighted mean (SD) age was 40.1 (3.57) years. Among physician parents, women were more likely to be responsible for childcare or schooling (24.6% [95% CI, 19.0%-30.2%] vs 0.8% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.1%]; P < .001) and household tasks (31.4% [95% CI, 25.4%-37.4%] vs 7.2% [95% CI, 3.5%-10.9%]; P < .001) during the pandemic compared with men. Women were also more likely than men to work primarily from home (40.9% [95% CI, 35.1%-46.8%] vs 22.0% [95% CI, 17.2%-26.8%]; P < .001) and reduce their work hours (19.4% [95% CI, 14.7%-24.1%] vs 9.4% [95% CI, 6.0%-12.8%]; P = .007). Women experienced greater work-to-family conflict (β = 2.79; 95% CI, 1.00 to 4.59; P = .03), family-to-work conflict (β = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.18-4.99; P = .02), and depressive (β = 1.76; 95% CI, 0.56-2.95; P = .046) and anxiety (β = 2.87; 95% CI, 1.49-4.26; P < .001) symptoms compared with men. We observed a difference between women and men in depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic (mean [SD] PHQ-9 score: 5.05 [6.64] vs 3.52 [5.75]; P = .009) that was not present before the pandemic (mean [SD] PHQ-9 score: 3.69 [5.26] vs 3.60 [6.30]; P = .86).This study found significant gender disparities in work and family experiences and mental health symptoms among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may translate to increased risk for suicide, medical errors, and lower quality of patient care for physician mothers. Institutional and public policy solutions are needed to mitigate the potential adverse consequences for women’s careers and well-being.

Adoption and use of health information technology (IT) was identified as 1 solution to quality and safety issues that permeate the United States health care system. Implementation of health IT has accelerated across the US over the past decade, in part, as a result of legislative and regulatory requirements and incentives. However, adoption of these systems has burdened clinician users due to design, configuration, and implementation issues, resulting in poor usability, challenges to workflow integration, and cumbersome documentation requirements. The path to alleviating these clinician burdens requires a clear understanding of the intent and evolution of pertinent regulations and the context in which they exist. This article reviews the Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology’s efforts, documents current regulatory actions, and discusses additional policy opportunities that can further improve clinician satisfaction and effectiveness in providing health care with health IT that is an asset, not an obstacle.

Having been in existence for several years, ChristianaCare's Center for WorkLife Wellbeing was well- positioned to spearhead many collaborative efforts designed to promote caregiver wellbeing during the current prolonged pandemic. The chief wellness officer took several actions as a senior physician leader to ensure that caregiver wellbeing was a priority and that caregivers' concerns were used to promote positive change. The team members of the Center were able to adapt existing programs and services—and expand others—to ensure that caregivers were supported and capable of caring for patients with confidence. Supporting caregiver wellbeing is not the work of one office, but rather the entire system. Coordinated action is necessary to enact changes at the system level that make caregiver wellbeing a priority in the face of a national health crisis.

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Health Organizations: Establishing Commitment & Shared Governance (Organizational Infrastructure for Well-Being).

New research from Gartner reveals that although 87% of employees have access to mental and emotional well-being offerings, only 23% of employees use them. The author suggests three strategies to boost employee participation in these programs and maximize their investment in employee well-being: 1) Increase employee understanding of well-being needs and offerings, 2) Reduce well-being stigma and apathy, and 3) Reduce the time and effort needed to participate in well-being programs.

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Health Organizations: Ensuring Physical & Mental Health (Stress/Trauma & Resilience).

In the last decade, significant progress has been made in recognizing physician burnout, traditionally defined as a work-related phenomenon characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a decreased sense of personal accomplishment, as a key public health issue. There is enhanced understanding of demographic differences in well-being, such as greater compassion fatigue and lower professional fulfillment among female compared with male physicians and differences across specialties. The widespread prevalence of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and decreased personal accomplishment among physicians and their relationship with quality, safety, patient outcomes, and physician turnover are increasingly recognized, with health systems and influential bodies across the country actively seeking to address these issues.

[This is an excerpt.] Administrative spending accounts for about one-quarter of the nearly $4 trillion spent on health care annually in the United States, making it a natural place to look for savings. Yet despite attempts to lower such costs, they have remained stubbornly high for decades. Is it possible that all this spending is really necessary? No, it is not. For the past two years, we, along with colleagues from the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, have been examining administrative health-care costs in detail — and comparing them with similar costs in other industries. Of the roughly $1 trillion in annual health-care administrative spending, we estimated the United States could save $265 billion annually, or roughly 6 percent of total health-care spending, by applying technologies and processes proven to work already. For context, that is more than Medicare fee-for-service spent on inpatient and outpatient hospital care combined in 2019. Put another way, this would amount to $1,300 for each adult in the United States. If we achieved savings of that magnitude, we would be able to trim the health-care bills of financially stretched Americans even as we invest in behavioral health and other underfunded areas of care.[To read more, click View Resource.]

‍

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Government: Optimizing Workload & Workflows (Reduce Administrative Burden).

‍

‍

‍

OBJECTIVES: Nurses are at a high risk of developing mental health problems due to exposure to work environment risk factors. Previous research in this area has only examined a few factors within nurses’ work environments, and those factors were not conceptualized with the goal of improving workplace mental health. The purpose of this study is to identify the most important work environment predictors of nurse mental health using a comprehensive and theoretically grounded measure based on the National Standard of Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace. METHODS: This is an exploratory cross-sectional survey study of nurses in British Columbia, Canada. For this study, responses from a convenience sample of 4029 actively working direct care nurses were analyzed using random forest regression methods. Key predictors include 13 work environment factors. Study outcomes include depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), burnout and life satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, healthier reports of work environment conditions were associated with better nurse mental health. More specifically balance, psychological protection and workload management were the most important predictors of depression, anxiety, PTSD and emotional exhaustion. While engagement, workload management, psychological protection and balance were the most important predictors of depersonalization, engagement was the most important predictor of personal accomplishment. Balance, psychological protection and engagement were the most important predictors of life satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Routine assessment with standardized tools of nurses’ work environment conditions and mental health is an important, evidence-based organizational intervention. This study suggests nurses’ mental health is particularly influenced by worklife balance, psychological protection and workload management.

BACKGROUND: The HERO registry was established to support research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US healthcare workers. Objective: Describe the COVID-19 pandemic experiences of and effects on individuals participating in the HERO registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-administered registry enrollment survey conducted from April 10 to July 31, 2020. SETTING: Participants worked in hospitals (74.4%), outpatient clinics (7.4%), and other settings (18.2%) located throughout the nation. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 14,600 healthcare workers. MAIN MEASURES: COVID-19 exposure, viral and antibody testing, diagnosis of COVID-19, job burnout, and physical and emotional distress. KEY RESULTS: Mean age was 42.0 years, 76.4% were female, 78.9% were White, 33.2% were nurses, 18.4% were physicians, and 30.3% worked in settings at high risk for COVID-19 exposure (e.g., ICUs, EDs, COVID-19 units). Overall, 43.7% reported a COVID-19 exposure and 91.3% were exposed at work. Just 3.8% in both high- and low-risk settings experienced COVID-19 illness. In regression analyses controlling for demographics, professional role, and work setting, the risk of COVID-19 illness was higher for Black/African-Americans (aOR 2.32, 99% CI 1.45, 3.70, p < 0.01) and Hispanic/Latinos (aOR 2.19, 99% CI 1.55, 3.08, p < 0.01) compared with Whites. Overall, 41% responded that they were experiencing job burnout. Responding about the day before they completed the survey, 53% of participants reported feeling tired a lot of the day, 51% stress, 41% trouble sleeping, 38% worry, 21% sadness, 19% physical pain, and 15% anger. On average, healthcare workers reported experiencing 2.4 of these 7 distress feelings a lot of the day. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers are at high risk for COVID-19 exposure, but rates of COVID-19 illness were low. The greater risk of COVID-19 infection among race/ethnicity minorities reported in the general population is also seen in healthcare workers. The HERO registry will continue to monitor changes in healthcare worker well-being during the pandemic.

High-quality primary care is the foundation of the health care system. It provides continuous, person-centered, relationship-based care that considers the needs and preferences of individuals, families, and communities. Without access to high-quality primary care, minor health problems can spiral into chronic disease, chronic disease management becomes difficult and uncoordinated, visits to emergency departments increase, preventive care lags, and health care spending soars to unsustainable levels.

Unequal access to primary care remains a concern, and the COVID-19 pandemic amplified pervasive economic, mental health, and social health disparities that ubiquitous, high-quality primary care might have reduced. Primary care is the only health care component where an increased supply is associated with better population health and more equitable outcomes. For this reason, primary care is a common good, which makes the strength and quality of the country's primary care services a public concern.

Implementing High-Quality Primary Care: Rebuilding the Foundation of Health Care puts forth an evidence-based plan with actionable objectives and recommendations for implementing high-quality primary care in the United States. The implementation plan of this report balances national needs for scalable solutions while allowing for adaptations to meet local needs.

‍

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Government: Optimizing Workload & Workflows (Advance Team-Based Care AND Advance Team-Based Care) AND Strategies for Other Private Organizations: Private Payers

[This is an excerpt.] We have been living through a time like no other in modern history. Over the last year, people around the world have simultaneously faced a global pandemic responsible for more than 2.6 million deaths; observed— and in many cases — participated in the world’s largest work-from-home experiment; and witnessed a global movement to end systemic racism and police brutality. The enormity of these combined events has motivated company leaders to consider more closely the toll they have taken on employees’ lives. Acknowledging the disparate impact on certain segments of the workforce, including women, people of color, and front-line workers has motivated leaders to commit to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) more intentionally and become more transparent about their company’s DEI-related progress. [To read more, click View Resource.]

This resource is found in our Actionable Strategies for Health Organizations: Promoting Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion.