First rule of communicating in a public health crisis: Do no harm
You’ve likely heard of the Hippocratic oath — the one that doctors swear before they become doctors. Short and simple enough to persist from ancient medical texts: First, do no harm.
It’s the same principle that should guide health officials, elected officials, and the media as they deal with coronavirus, which the World Health Organization has officially declared a public health emergency.
As the first cases arrive in Canada, we hear a lot about global travel and how our interconnectedness makes transmission easier.
But information travels faster. And as we click, scroll or glance at a breaking news update to see the latest numbers and images from China and around the world, we miss one important thing: context.
Our health-care system has evolved substantially since the last public health outbreak of SARS in 2003. We’ve learned a lot about managing a public health crisis and are better prepared medically than ever before. But I’m not so sure we’re prepared for communicating it now that social media has changed everything.
Afterall, Facebook and Twitter didn’t exist in 2003.
In some ways, it would be easier for public health and elected officials to provide the public with accurate information if they could go back to a time of evening news casts and morning newspapers. But we’re in the TikTok era now.
The first time the public hears about a situation should be from the people responsible for protecting our health and safety. Unfortunately, our medical system was built for accuracy not speed, and lab tests and verification processes weren’t designed to keep up with the pace of the smart phones.
Our healthcare leaders need to be ready to communicate at all times. Focusing on speaking openly, honestly, and frequently about what they know — or often, more importantly — what they don’t know and why.
Then, who says what? It shouldn’t always be elected officials, who might lack the scientific or medical expertise. And it shouldn’t always be doctors or scientists, some of whom may lack the right level of empathy or authority to communicate with the public. A mix is best. So far, Ottawa and Ontario seem to be getting this right.
Despite this, there will be no shortage of ‘fake news’. And while it may be annoying and irresponsible in politics on any given day, it can be a matter of life, death and panic during emergencies. We can’t stop people from seeking out information from a variety of sources — reliable, amateur, or unverifiable — but we can help prevent unnecessary fear by keeping official communications fact-based.
It’s natural for people to want to know more about a new virus: how it is spread, how it’s not, and who’s at risk. Special effort should be given to sharing what is known in as many ways as possible: from news outlets to Instagram, in as many languages as possible.
And in a crisis, it’s about more than just words. People will be looking for action. Even reminding people to wash their hands or stay home from work or school if they’re sick can go a long way. Individually, this might not make much of a difference, but collectively, it can.
During outbreaks — or the fear of outbreaks — many people feel helpless, especially the elderly and people with compromised immune systems. Reaffirming for these people that there is a plan to address the crisis is critical.
These measures can also help build trust with the public so that people who might be impacted are not afraid to reach out for help. Clear direction is needed on how to do so and what steps can be taken to avoid the risk of spreading an illness.
It might be weeks or months before we know the full extent and impact of the coronavirus globally. But today, the responsibility to help manage it relies heavily on the ability of our health-care leaders to communicate with the information we need, when we need it. And first and foremost, to do no harm.
