Lessons from A Volunteer Covid-19 Information Line

Abstract

Research Question: Based on the experience of volunteers, were the calls predominantly related to infection (symptoms, testing) or alternatively, did questions regarding lifestyle and quality of life (financial status, shelter, legal assistance) predominate? To both quantify and analyze the quality of the calls, this question will be approached through the following four aims: Aim 1: Quantify the number of calls serviced by the UNTHSC call center; Aim 2: Assess differences in proportion of medical and non-medical questions; Aim 3: Assess sub-categorical differences among non-medical calls; Aim 4: Use call logs to identify which types of questions were “difficult to answer” Background/Significance: During a seven-week period in 2020 that saw the introduction of nationwide COVID-19 testing and executive stay-at-home orders, the Tarrant County Public Health (TCPH) 24-hour information line was established and operated by TCPH staff and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) volunteers. Unfortunately, while crisis hotlines and triage phone centers routinely assess outcomes, retrospective quality studies are rare. Given the transient and unpredictable nature of pandemics, failure to reflect on call center experience limits current process improvement and puts future coordinated efforts at risk for lapses in preparedness and inefficiencies. Methods: Retrospective analysis of categorical data from Call Summary logs from the TCPH information line. These logs contained a tally of the total number of calls a volunteer answered in a 6-hour shift, categorized as “Testing/Site Referral, Business/Police Non-Emergency Questions, New Positive Case, case daily monitoring, social distancing, and other (with short description).” Call Logs also included space to list any calls/questions that were difficult to answer with the volunteer script.

Results: The volunteer phone bank recorded 8117 total calls during its operation, with 1462 captured in the categorical logs. Medical calls accounted for 64.8% (947) and non-medical accounted for 35.2% (515). Business and non-emergency police calls were nearly half of non-medical calls (44.3%), with social distancing and other nearly even at 27.4% and 28.2%, respectively.

Conclusions: While the social aftermath of previous disease outbreaks has been explored, the current body of literature regarding pandemic preparedness focuses largely on prevention, identification, containment, and treatment of infectious cases. More than one-third of the volunteer calls were classified as non-medical, suggesting a significant opportunity exists to prepare for non-medical community needs during a pandemic. Further analysis of thematic differences of difficult call questions may aid future public health preparedness.