And to All a Space Where They Feel Safe, Seen, Heard, and Valued…

2023 saw grand movement in the health equity space, especially in terms of accreditation, regulations, reimbursement, and programming. However, despite the best intent, there are miles to go before we sleep.

A flurry of recent headlines came to mind as I sat down to craft this last blog for 2023. Each of them were noteworthy for commentary:

At a time when society, and especially the health care industry have fixated their attention on policies and programs to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, it appears that there is still much work to do. Despite the wins that we have seen in 2023, my fellow health equity warriors and I have miles to go before we sleep.

2023 Was Not For Naught

Now, we’ve seen some big wins in the health equity space this past year, including but not limited to:

There is a robust list of legislation and funding action that has occurred across the macro- , meso-, and micro-level arenas of care. However, I’m one of those who is impatient with the progress heretofore, despite the well-intended actions. It often feels that there so many gaps and chasms in care to address, that we’ve barely scratched the surface.


Moving Forward and My Commitment to You

Every step I walk in the health equity arena ignites my passion, purpose, and the promise of all that is possible for our industry and every stakeholder. I am appreciative of those who have followed and read my blog, attended presentations, and read the content that I’ve authored, whether books, chapters, scholarly articles and other continuing education content. Your enthusiasm for my innovative work in this space has meant so much.

My Top 5 blog articles for 2023 have been:

1. Health Equity and the SDoH Are NOT Synonyms

2. The U.S. Playbook to Address the SDoH: Launchpad vs. Final Comprehensive Strategy

3. Patient Compliance vs. Adherence: Advancing the Health Equity Mandate

4. Workplace Bullying’s Wrath Continues

5. Job Search Lessons for Health, Behavioral Health, and Public Health Students

I’m taking a rest to restore my resilience over these next few weeks. But as we embark on 2024, know how much your support fuels me to keep advancing our healthcare industry.

Every effort is meaningful, no matter how big or small. Only through our collective energies will we achieve that coveted wholistic health quality compass of the Quintuple/Quintile Aim. Only in this way will we forge a safe and ethical space for practice where every patient, population, provider, practitioner be able to feel safe, seen, heard, and valued.

The U.S. Playbook to Address the SDoH: Launchpad vs. Final Comprehensive Strategy

The White House released the inaugural U.S. Playbook to Address the Social Determinants of Health. The document serves as an important cross-sector guidepost for application, implementation, and action by all involved stakeholders to best serve their patients and communities. But, does the Playbook go far enough to fully address the SDoH? What other opportunities loom?

It’s been another exciting week for those of us taking our daily walk down Social Determinants of Health Lane. The White House released their U.S. Playbook to Address the Social Determinants of Health. The document has captured the industry’s attention, though also yielded some scrutiny.

The Lowdown

The Playbook is a bold undertaking. The document level-sets the massive work engaged in so far to address the health disparities and barriers to care engaged in across the industry. It quotes research and seminal reports citing the clinical and fiscal impact of health inequities faced by society’s minoritized and marginalized populations and providers. This vital foundation also highlights the importance of patient- and family- centric care that heeds the Quintuple and Quintile Aims at micro, meso, and macro levels, and across involved sectors.

For those who want the Cliff Notes version, here you go. Pages 1-18 provide critical information for persons and organizations who seek foundational information on SDoH (e.g., research, definitions, models) and context for them. This is especially valuable knowledge for students, as well as those who might not be as informed on this topic.

For my colleagues who have been in these trenches, pages 18-35 detail the three Playbook pillars with numbered strategic actions to advance each pillar. There is a candid and comprehensive review of the context for each pillar and potential challenges for implementation. Opportunities for Congressional Action are also detailed.

1. Expand data gathering and sharing: Advance data collection and interoperability among health care, public health, social care services, and other data systems to better address SDOH with federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial support.

2. Support flexible funding for social needs: Identify how flexible use of funds could align investments across sectors to finance community infrastructure, offer grants to empower communities to address HRSNs, and encourage coordinated use of resources to improve health outcomes.

3. Support backbone organizations: Support the development of community backbone organizations and other infrastructure to link health care systems to community-based organizations

The Appendics (pages 36-46) discuss how aspects of the Playbook are currently being operationalized using the Whole of Government approach. This section is a ‘must read’ for it provides specific examples to operationalize each action, with further guidance and information for readers on funding opportunities, toolkits with existing screening and assessment resources, and other critical community activities.

To Be Clear

Like most Federal reports and position papers, the Playbook was not developed as a ‘be all to end all’ document. This valuable resource highlights the mandate for all stakeholders and sectors of health and behavioral health services to ensure the most robust and sustainable approach to inclusive care for all populations possible.

How each organization accomplishes this critical priority is on them. Some might have preferred a greater Playbook focus on expanded funding and reimbursement, and that’s one clear opportunity. My take for ensuring organizational success in addressing the SDoH involves ten elements:

1. Take an honest and critical look at their current SDoH priorities.

2. Identify their target populations most impacted and develop means to ensure equitable and accessible care for all persons. This also includes incorporation of quality metrics and relevant outcomes that go beyond length of stay and readmissions to population-specific health priorities (e.g Patient-reported Outcomes Measures).

3. Align all existing inter- and intra-organizational resources and community partners.

4. Utilize and partner on funding access and opportunities; this includes ongoing investment in their communities served, advocacy for appropriate reimbursement (yup, those ICD-10-CM Z codes), and other fiscal imperatives.

5. Ensure appropriate mechanisms for data-gathering, interoperability, and use.

6. Heed industry compliance requirements (e.g., CMS, the Joint Commission, NCQA, NQF) to implement formal patient assessment (or Health-related Social Needs (HRSNs)) intervention, and direct referral linkage.

7. Ensure diverse and sufficient interprofessional staffing who can provide concordant and respectful whole-person care to all populations, which leverages integrated care frameworks and integrated behavioral health models of treatment.

8. Prioritize workforce training on trauma-informed approaches to care, eliminating implicit and explicit biases and microaggressions, and maximizing ethical engagement to enhance patient engagement and treatment adherence versus compliance and resistance.

9. Ensure the alignment and application of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) policies, whereby all patients and the industry workforce feel safe, seen, heard, and valued.

10. Commit to long-term strategic solutioning of the SDoH rather than short-term reactive response.

In Closing

“The Playbook is a launchpad, and not a final comprehensive strategy for addressing the SDoH”. It may not go as far as all stakeholders would like. Yet, the Playbook serves as an important guidepost for necessary cross-sector application, implementation, and action by all entities and individuals to best serve their patients and communities. I trust readers of this post will weigh in with other suggestions, and that input is encouraged. Just remember, final accountability for advancing these efforts is on us all.

Workplace Bullying’s Wrath Continues

Workplace Bullying incidence is on the rise in healthcare from post-pandemic dynamics of workforce shortages, retention challenges, staff burnout, and other occupational hazards. Patient safety is at risk, as are interprofessional team relationships and workforce mental health. What must you know to tackle this disruptor?

October was National Bullying Awareness Month. Each year I hope for improvement in the landscape of this fierce disruptor, especially across healthcare. Yet, the incidence of incivility keeps rising, particularly from post-pandemic dynamics of workforce shortages, retention challenges, staff burnout and other occupational hazards. What began with a few posturing practitioners and nurses who ate their young is now an interprofessional sport that every discipline plays, and nobody gets to sit out. The impact is massive:

Bullying and incivility incidence have ramped up from the DEIB lens, impacting:

Incivility by practitioners lead to medical errors >75% of the time, and resulting in death >30% of the time. The workforce is also at elevated risk of trauma, and especially suicide from bullying’s wrath:

  • Suicidal ideation: >30% of victims (of bullying) 
  • Suicide: Victims 2X as likely to take their own life compared to those not exposed

Bullying Defined

Bullying is a consistent pattern of repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more members of the workforce, marked by abusive conduct that is threatening, humiliating, or intimidating. Work is delayed, sabotaged, and obstructed. These are impediments that NO professional can afford in the fast-paced industry. We’re not talking about random times when someone feels crispy around the edges or has a bad day, but a chronic and recurrent pattern of behaviors that somehow devalue others.

Gaslighting, Mobbing, and Remote Bullying, OH MY!

Three types of bullying are on the rose. Gaslighting occurs when a colleague ignites the gas by tossing out an inflammatory implication that forces you or others to question your actions or ability to do the job. The bully fans the fire by ongoing attacks; they may challenge your memory of events, such as implying that you ‘forgot’ to follow up on dialogues with a patient’s family or member of the care team. There may be comments to other colleagues about your bouts of ‘memory loss’. Imagine, being approached by staff or patient families to verify if you completed documentation, which you clearly recall doing. Even you start to question the quality of your work performance, especially as your reputation and job performance are at issue. Six types of gaslighting are:

  • Countering: Challenging someone’s memory 
  • Denial: Refusal to take responsibility for actions
  • Diverting: Changing a discussion focus by questioning someone else’s credibility 
  • Stereotyping: Generalizing through negative or discriminatory views of a person’s race, ethnicity, sexuality, nationality, or other cultural nuance. 
  • Trivializing: Disregarding when someone feels minimized by what is said and devaluing the impact
  • Withholding: A bully pretends to not understand a conversation and refuses to listen to another person’s view. That person ends up doubting themself. 

Mobbing is bullying on steroids and occurs when multiple staff target one or more personnel. Almost 50% all bullying incidents involve mobbing with 54% of primary care professionals exposed to this type of incivility on at least one occasion. Perhaps, a new director of Case Management at an MCO changes the job description to require all new hires to possess case management certification; current employees must be certified by the end of that calendar year. Staff view this requirement as an undue hardship and become frustrated. The rumor mill ensues: ‘The quality of the work isn’t important, only if we can pass a test.’; ‘she doesn’t care about us.’ The mob works to discredit the boss and push her out the door. Staff may view a new colleague as not fitting in, whether because of being in a different age group, professional discipline, as well as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other cultural nuance. As a result the staff member does not feel safe, seen, heard, or valued.

Remote bullying has risen amid the high volume of virtual roles. Some 43% of employees were exposed to remote bullying experiences:

  • 50% of incidents during virtual meetings
  • 10% via email interactions, and 
  • 6% during group emails and chats. 

What YOU Can Do!
Bullies strive to make you feel inefficient, ineffective, and incapable of performing your role. BUT here’s their dirty secret and biggest misstep! BULLIES target the most ethical, hard-working, and high-performing individuals in an organization. If you’ve been bullied, it means you’re more powerful than you’ve ever imagined, as you’re a threat to the bully and their ineptitude.

Tackling bullying involves strategy:

  • Intervene early: Don’t let a precedent be set and address the behavior directly
  • Don’t react to the bully: ‘Take 10’ to breathe, consider, and define an approach
  • Document each incident: Date, time, witnesses, and who you discussed it with.
  • Don’t let the bully isolate you: Keep engaged with peers and those who trust your savvy.
  • Set limits on negative behaviors you will allow: We may let small things go, but stay vigilant.
  • Don’t share lots of personal details at work: This info will be used against you
  • Take time to recharge from incidents: Mental health days or vaca help restore your resilience
  • Seek Support: Peer support and mental health support are MUSTS; one may potentially need independent legal support!
  • Put your best professional self forward: Bullies thrive on the weakness of others, so keep showing that best version of yourself  
  • Approach bullying as a work project: Being methodical keeps you in control. Assess  financial costs of staff departures, plus follow the ‘Steps to Address Bullying’.  

Those steps and other ways to advance each above strategy live in Chapters 3 and 6 of The Ethical Case Manager: Tools and Tactics. The book’ content:

  1. Defines terms associated with workplace bullying
  2. Discusses how workplace bullying impacts physical and mental health 
  3. Aligns workplace bullying, quality of care, and patient safety 
  4. Recognizes the “Bullying Recipe” within organizations
  5. Examines how the practice culture of professional education impacts incidence
  6. Explores the incidence across the DEIB landscape 
  7. Identifies types of organizational culture that contradict workplace bullying
  8. Discusses leadership styles to impact workplace bullying in organizations
  9. Identifies legislation and professional initiatives to combat workplace bullying
  10. Explores how bullying impedes the ethical performance of case managers 
  11. Offers quality monitoring tools to address unprofessional behaviors
  12. Informs you how to calculate costs of workplace bullying for your organization 

REMEMBER

Keep Ellen’s Ethical Mantras close by:

  • We deserve respect.
  • We deserve to feel safe. 
  • We deserve not to feel trapped in a toxic workplace.
  • We deserve to have our knowledge and expertise valued.
  • We deserve to have confidence that all are accountable for their actions.
  • We deserve to be able to confront workplace bullying without fear of retribution.

Housing Insecurity=Increased Illness Morbidity and Mortality: Solutions Mandated

Despite abundant research on the intersection of chronic illness morbidity, mortality, & homelessness, poor health outcomes related to housing insufficiency continue. The data is meaningless without using it to activate solid solutions.

“Homelessness remains a key social determinant of health, with researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, revealing that individuals who are homeless are 16X more likely to experience sudden cardiac death than those who are not.” This quote appeared in my social media feed last week, and several thoughts immediately popped in my head. First, it had been over a month since I wrote a blog and that needed to be remedied pronto. Next, this topic gave me a mandate to chew on. However, I wondered, if I had missed something in translation. Surely, this topic was not new news. Despite the significance of this new research on the intersection of sudden cardiac death and homelessness, poor outcomes related to housing insufficiency have been long-standing.

Where it Started IS STILL How it’s Going

Housing insufficiency has been among the most frequently researched SDoH, particularly in how it contributes to excessive clinical and fiscal healthcare utilization for patients. I’ve always valued this quote: “While differences in health between housed socioeconomic groups can be described as a ‘slope’, differences in health between housed and homeless people are better understood as a ‘cliff’.”

Persons who are housing insecure face considerable wholistic health challenges across the domains of physical, mental, and psychosocial health. Barriers to care are only exacerbated by the provision of care that can be suboptimal, and is often fueled by implicit bias on the part of providers. This connection leads to lack of trust by the population of practitioners and the healthcare system overall. 

Global mortality rates for those who are housing insecure are far higher than other populations, and impacts every demographic. Research-driven me wanted to share a few items to ponder:

There’s plenty data more where that came from and across every cultural nuance spanning minoritized and marginalized populations (e.g., age, ethnicity, gender, persons with physical, developmental and intellectual disabilities, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and other groups) . However, amid my profound respect for the research is a valid concern; data is meaningless without using it to activate solid solutions. 

Strategic Solutioning

I posted related thoughts about this topic on LinkedIn earlier in the week. Countless colleagues and thought leaders in this space chimed in to echo similar and strong sentiments. Among the wisdom shared included:

  1. Active implementation and use of ICD-10-CM-Z codes: Homelessness and healthcare have been misaligned for well over my 40-year tenure in the industry. Fortunately the ICD-10-CM-Z code of Z59 for homelessness has morphed into more realistic and reimbursable codes for industry use, with many effective as of October 1, 2023. A big nod to Evelyn Gallego, the Gravity Project, Dr. Ronald Hirsch, Tiffany Ferguson, and other Z-Code warriors for their tireless energies in this space. Despite this progress, I still hear coders, utilization management specialists, and case managers push back on their use. Many are discouraged from using the codes in their organizations in deference to those that reap higher revenue capture. This is short-sighted, if not potentially fraudulent action; can we say “upcoding”? For those who need a refresher, the codes are listed below with a deeper dive available here:
    • Z59.1: Inadequate housing
      • Z59.10: unspecified
      • Z59.11: environmental temperature
      • Z59.12: utilities
      • Z59.19: other inadequate housing
    • Z59.81: Housing instability, housed
      • Z59.811: with risk of homelessness
      • Z59.812: homelessness in the past 12 months
      • Z59.819: unspecified
  2. Greater acknowledgement of and attention to all social drivers of health: For those who not privy to this information, the CMS 2023 IPPS Final Rule mandated that hospitals reporting to the Inpatient Quality Reporting program submit two measures, SDOH-1 and SDOH-2: voluntary for 2023 but required by 2024. We’re all waiting anxiously to see what the penalties for not reporting this data will be, but we can expect they’ll be significant. Joint Commission has also stepped in with standards NPSG.16.01.01 and EP 2 (Notes 1 and 2). You snooze, you lose!
  3. Attention to How Environmental Factors Exacerbate Social Drivers: Evelyn Gallego is the ultimate data mavin for our industry. Emphasis of environmental exposure due to homelessness and sudden death is a population health priority and public health imperative. As a fellow data-geek, I know how use of the data drives making the case to define policy and funding imperatives, so here are my favorites:
  4. Cities Taking Action to Address Health, Equity and Climate Risks: Through the RWJF’s grant-funded project, Cities Taking Action to Address Health, Equity and Climate Change, 6 U.S. cities have been supported to respond to the interconnected challenges of health, equity and the climate crisis with innovative, community-led projects. The cities and their areas include: 
  5. Enhanced Acknowledgement of the Different Types of Homelessness: There is a cultural shift as the industry is being forced to distinguish between types of housing insufficiency, such as acute and chronic homelessness across populations. Innovators working on the front lines of this challenge include Peter Badgley, Jake Rothstein, and John Gorman from Upside I Housing for Health. The National Alliance to End Homelessness continues their tireless crusade to prevent and end homelessness in the US. The National Community Action Partnership’s over 1000 state agencies take an active role in coordinating on housing advocacy and resource provision. FindHelp.org has a dedicated portal on their site for localized housing information.
  6. Expansion of Affordable Housing, Tax Credits, and other Housing Programs: The Center for Budget Priorities continues to advocate in this arena with a litany of recommendations for capital investments at the Federal, state, and local levels:
    • Reducing the shortage of deeply affordable rental housing 
    • Expanding vouchers for housing
    • Implementing a housing developer-focused renters’ tax credit
    • Reversing restrictive local zoning practices
    • Preventing the loss of existing affordable housing
    • Improving the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program
    • Investing in tribal communities’ housing needs
    • Removing barriers to homeownership
    • Reforming project-based housing programs to encourage higher-quality housing.

Where We Need to Go

I’m just getting warmed up here, though always strive for comprehensive articles. I encourage others to add solid strategies and resources in the comments section of this blog post. Remember, we are made stronger by using the data to advocate for practical and sustainable solutions! Keep fighting the fight #SDoHWarriors.

The Ethical Conundrum of Healthcare Ethics Committees

Ethics committees have been a condition of Joint Commission accreditation since 1992, yet there is massive variation in their implementation and use. They should not replace the dialogues of interprofessional team members with patients, families, or each other.

There’s been a recent uptick by case managers of their patient referrals to hospital ethics committees. This topic is near and dear to me, especially having served as the chair or co-chair of several acute care-based ethics committees over the years. The industry demand for decreased hospital utilization and length of stay has meant a shift in how ethics committees are viewed and often utilized. We’ve gone from traditional referrals, as in defining a treatment plan when practitioners define care as futile or a patient lacks advance directives, to when an individual refuses to accept a discharge plan. I’ve heard of situations where ethics committee consults are tapped should a patient be “non-compliant” with their treatment; this is language that I challenge at every opportunity and my recent blog on this topic reveals just how much. But I digress….

Ethics committees have been a condition of Joint Commission accreditation since 1992, yet there is massive variation in their implementation and use. The Joint Commission standard is clear: “healthcare organizations must have a mechanism in place to develop and implement a process that allows staff, [patients], and families to address ethical issues or issues prone to conflict.” Yet, the details of that mechanism are left to the discretion of each organization and therein lies the conundrum and challenge!

The Power of Ethics Committee 

The requirements for ethics committees were driven by increasing patient situations that involved a lack of clarity between patient and family wishes, expectations for treatment, the provider’s prognosis, and/or the patient’s treatment plan. The case of Karen Ann Quinlan is often viewed as that legal landmark to set the precedent for formalization of bio-ethics and ethics committees in hospitals. In April 1975 at the age of 21, Ms. Quinlan became unconscious after consuming Valium with alcohol while on a crash diet. She lapsed into a coma, followed by a persistent vegetative state. After a lengthy legal battle, the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed Ms. Quinlan’s parents to disconnect the respirator, affirming the choice she would have made; Karen lived until 1985. Other patient situations would follow and continue to appear, Terry Schiavo to Brittany Maynard and David Adox. The real-life experiences of these individuals have bolstered the vital role of ethics committees as one firm pillar of today’s healthcare process, leveraging the industry’s ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, justice, and nonmalfeasance.

Misconceptions Run Amuck

Despite clear guidelines for ethics committees, organizations can have a varied understanding of their moving parts. Among these points of confusion can be what members of the interprofessional team should be involved, how many persons should serve and for how long, the amount of onboarding required, and scope of each member’s role. Even the amount of work expected can prompt a moment of pause. Ethics committees are too often developed haphazardly and without a formal plan. The consequences of these actions yield an Ethics Committee in name only, which devalues the role of this critical resource for patients, their families, and the interprofessional teams that care for them. 

One of the largest misperceptions of ethics committees lies in their true function. Despite recent popular belief, ethics committees are not used to tell patients, their families, and members of the interprofessional team what to do. Ethics committees review the clinical nuances of individual patient situations and documentation from interprofessional team members to make sure the wishes of the patient and/or their legal representatives are acknowledged. This may be specific to end-of-life decision-making, reviewing futility of care determinations by practitioners, or recognizing the rights of patients to refuse care or treatment.

Ethics committees play a vital role is reviewing that the care rendered is done in accordance with all Federal and State laws and regulations. One of my physician co-chairs used to say, “Ethics Committees step in when the treatment team has employed their due diligence to engage, assess, and communicate with the patient and family, whether through informed consent, shared decision-making, or other collaborative efforts (e.g., team and/or family meetings, care coordination rounds). Anything less reflects incomplete work by the team.”

Functions of Ethics Committees in a Changing Practice Climate

It might seem optimal to involve the ethics committee’s objective lens for review of discharge planning processes, such as when a patient refuses to go to a particular nursing home in deference to another facility or plan. However, that can also be a misuse or critical resources. Ethics committees should not replace the dialogues of interprofessional team members with patients, families or each other.

Ethics Committees have three basic functions:

  • Consultation:
    • Ensure training and support for committee members and consultants.

    • Provide consistent subject matter expertise for cases requiring formal ethics evaluation and recommendations.
    • Develop and implement evaluation metrics to ensure quality improvement, and,
    • Develop appropriate reports, publications, presentations for both internal personnel and external strategic partners.
    • Promote ethical leadership behaviors, such as explaining the values that underlie decisions, stressing the importance of ethics, and promoting transparency in decision making.
  • Education
    • Assure knowledgeable ethics committee members.
    • Provide appropriate education to the organization (e.g., trainings, journal articles, reports, available literature on professional resource trainings and conferences).
  • Policy review and development

In recent years, ethics committees affiliated with academic institutions and large healthcare systems have advanced into comprehensive ethics programs. A growing number of healthcare organizations integrate ethics from the bedside to the boardroom (University of Washington, 2023).Others provide consultations in response to non-clinical ethics questions, such as identifying and remedying systems-level factors that have the potential to induce or exacerbate ethical problems and/or impede their resolution, as in staffing issues from workforce shortages. A valuable article recommends key foundational principles to:

  • Strengthen the position of ethics committees in hospitals, 
  • Ensure continuous supervision over committee formation and meetings, operations and decision-making processes, and
  • Define how committees’ decisions are shared with involved hospital stakeholders and staff.

Case managers can find out more on ethics committees, the seminal cases that drove them, and innovative ways to engage with them in Chapters 2 and 4 of The Ethical Case Manager: Tools and Tactics available on Amazon.

Seeking Social Media Recommendations: The Ethical Quandary for Case Management

Case managers and other healthcare professional commonly ping “friends” or tag “connections” for resource info from treatment and provider recommendations to specific home health agencies and skilled nursing homes. Complex patient circumstances become group chats. After all, there’s no harm in seeking consultation or recommendations, right? Read how unintentional posts become ethical and legal missteps, and how to best manage them.

The discharge planning process always moved quickly, but these days it’s on steroids! Case managers face intense pressure to quickly transition patients to that next level of care, or home. Whether you case manage for a hospital, an MCO, or a community-based agency, you need information when you need it! You seek answers to questions “in the moment” and that is usually not the workplace! Social media has become fastest way for case managers to quickly get resource information on how to access what you need, and when you need it!

More and more new case managers are entering the workforce than ever before. Their onboarding happens at warp speed, though learning discharge planning resources can take time; they also change rapidly. Case managers and other healthcare professionals commonly ping “friends” or tag “connections for needed resources, from treatment and provider recommendations to specific home health agencies and skilled nursing homes. Complex patient circumstances become group discussions where colleagues to weigh in on management of everything from addiction and family dynamics to “tough to place” patients, or those with chronic readmissions and ED visits. Access to costly prescription drug access, transportation, and other health-related social need are also popular topics. After all, there’s no harm in seeking consultation or recommendations, right? I get countless emails and queries about this topic, so decided to write a brief blog post to guide the masses.

HIPAA Breaches, Penalties, and Professional Sanctions

Actually, there are ethical, and often legal pitfalls of posting these recommendations. Despite a case manager’s best intent to seek guidance, these types of posts can easily and unintentionally become HIPAA breaches. This may translate to financial penalties for the case manager and their employer, or potential sanctions or reprimands against one’s professional licensure and case management credential.

It can be common to see these posts within professional groups or communities. You know how it plays out. Limited information is posted about the patient, but then questions are posed by connections or group members. For each question and with each answer, more ePHI is inadvertently released. Ultimately there is just enough data for the patient or their family to be identified. It may not be one piece of information that leads to a HIPAA breach, but the collective discussion. This might include:

  • Posting the names and locations of potential facilities for transfer
  • Posting the age, psychosocial information about family demographics, or unique characteristics. 
  • Posting the name of the health plan for the patient
  • When a case manager’s social media profile includes information about their current employer
  • Providing psychosocial information on a patient who resides in a community of under 20,000 persons.

What’s the best way to handle obtaining these recommendations?

There are a series of ways that case managers can consult with colleagues and heed HIPAA and other ethical and legal requirements for patient privacy and confidentiality:

  • Use the least information possible about the person (or their family members) to obtain needed guidance and be mindful of the amount of detail provided (e.g., use obesity vs. a specific weight).
  • Make sure all necessary permissions for release of information documentation are clearly signed.
  • Move recommendation dialogues offline (e.g., emails, telephone calls) 
  • Heed those HIPAA and ePHI guidelines
  • Remember, all disciplines have unique privacy and confidentiality guidelines listed in their standards of practice and codes of ethics; many have additional social media policies with detailed parameters.
  • DO NOT FORGET that there are also distinct case management standards, guidelines, and ethical codes for most credentials addressing the legal parameters for use of health information technology, electronic communication, seeking consultations, informed consent, and associated privacy and confidentiality requirements (e.g., ACM, CCM, CDMS, CMC, CRC, RN-CMGT). All board-certified and credentialed case managers are beholden to those requirements. 

NOTE: Detailed information on this topic can be found in Chapter 7: Ethics is What You Do While Everyone Watches: Health Information Technology, in The Ethical Case Manager: Tools and Tactics by Dr. Ellen Fink-Samnick published through Blue Bayou Press and available on Amazon.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is meant to provide professional recommendation and does not supersede formal legal guidance. All case managers are strongly urged to review the the regulations and requirements for their individual licensure scope of practice, requisite case management and other formal credentials, plus relevant risk management and compliance policies and procedures for their employer.

Patient Compliance vs. Adherence: Advancing the Health Equity Mandate

Use of the term “compliance” instead of “adherence” by healthcare regulatory entities and organizations, plus practitioners, health systems and their and employees condones the blaming of patients for poor outcomes. It’s time to change this practice!

First, big thanks to all who read my last blog post Health Equity and the SDoH are Not Synonyms. That article has quickly become my top blog post with thousands of views across social media platforms and other news outlets. Ellen’s Interprofessional Insights is free access to all who value its messaging, so please share the link. Now, onto my latest fierce focus. 

I was reminded last week of a long-standing pet peeve: (mis)use of the terms compliance and adherence. I participated in a recent National Quality Forum (NQF) webinar on health-related social needs and was amazed to hear “compliance” used as a metric in the context of patient treatment. My brain went into overdrive! 

When will the industry stop blaming patients for treatment inactions? Has there not been enough focus on DEI strategies to enhance practitioner and provider cultural awareness and humility? How much emphasis has there been to advance assessment of health-related social needs (HRSNs) or social drivers of health, patient health literacy, and decreasing biases? (Psssst: Remember, the CMS penalties and Joint Commission standards (TJC) are real!). Despite a resounding YES to the above questions, we’ve got miles to go before we sleep. Use of the term “compliance” instead of “adherence” by healthcare regulatory entities and organizations, plus practitioners, health systems and their and employees only condones the blaming of patients for poor outcomes. It’s time to change this practice!

Compliance Conveys Power Not Partnership

I’m notorious for level-setting and wanted to start with a review of definitions. Compliance refers to regulatory enforcement of applicable requirements whereby organizations and their providers are expected to meet or exceed the defined legal, ethical, and professional standards.Their explicit goal is to reduce fraud, abuse, and waste, with the implicit intent to ensure patient and occupational safety. Yet, there is a concerning power dynamic imposed by this definition as regulatory entities (e.g., NCQA, NQF, TJC) possess legitimate power by virtue of their role in the industry.

Compliance also implies power verses partnership. The term speaks to an assumption that patients must be subservient to a practitioner’s authority, a troublesome concept for this clinical professional. What happens when a patient’s voice is not heard or dismissed by practitioners? What about when a patient doesn’t feel seen?  These situations emerge with increasing incidence across every population, with who are marginalized and minoritized experiencing this reality in unacceptable numbers.

Compliance suggests passive behavior, as when a patient is expected to follow treatment instructions. It may be the patient who is comfortable doing what the physician tells them to, whether take a prescribed medication in a defined dose or follow-up for counseling with a behavioral health provider. Some patients may heed this guidance as the norm, not daring to question their provider, while others will seek to clarify the rationale. This approach should not be surprising in an era where patients are consumers of their care. However, questioning, challenging, or ignoring provider recommendations is too often viewed as a negative. 

Power and misused power yield trauma, whether historical, experiential or event in scope. Acute, chronic, and complex trauma share misused power and/or oppression at their source.  Blaming patients is laden with stigma and accusatory messaging. It gets me wondering how much attention is paid to a patient’s health literacy, language proficiency, or any of their concordant preferences. 


By contrast, adherence is the active choice of patients to follow through with prescribed treatments, while taking responsibility for their well-being. This term signifies that patients and practitioners collaborate to improve their health behaviors toward overall a higher state of wellness. Successful outcomes are achieved through a blend of clinician expertise with patient choice incorporating lifestyle, values, and care preferences. Shared decision-making and personal integrity leverage meaningful therapeutic relationships.

Sync for Social Needs, Z-Codes, Yet Being Out of Sync

I was excited when NCQA, NQF, and the TJC joined the Sync for Social Needs Coalition. Yet, these entities present as out of sync with their views on how to best assess and address exactly what drives patient motivation and engagement in treatment. NCQA still uses the term adherence on their resource pages and metrics. TJC echoed emphasis on patient activation and adherence in recent issue briefs.

My beloved Z-Codes are not so in sync either. ICD-10-CM Z codes for Patient Noncompliance were expanded in 2023 to my disappointment. To be fair, I’m a member of the Gravity Project and tout their work at every opportunity. However, I took a brief break from my involvement to finish my Doctoral Culminating Project. The mantra, you snooze, you lose applies!

Z-Code Z91.1 of patient noncompliance with medical treatment and regimen made me shiver. How is this concept objectively evaluated in the current care climate? Hearing colleagues refer to “non-compliant patients” always felt subjective. The terminology stirred thoughts of misbehaving children or those unable to follow traditional societal norms. 

My clinical training aligns with psychodynamic theory, thus there are always reasons for all behaviors, whether conscious or unconscious. This approach explains why a person may present as unable or unwilling to follow medical treatment. If we don’t ask why, we can’t properly assess the reasons for these behavioral manifestations. Expanding these codes gave the industry license to label patient actions as “noncompliance” with their dietary regimen and medical treatment. Caregivers of patients are also subject to these same biasesfor their “noncompliance “with an expansive list of codes under Z.91. These codes can be viewed here.

This terminology use is shocking given how the workforce is readily cued to manage their biases, stay informed of microaggressions, and participate in continuous learning to decrease missteps. Training on cultural awareness to promote patient engagement and satisfaction with care is emphasized at every turn. Yet, I am disappointed that practitioners are empowered to code, and thus blame, patients and caregivers for treatment disparities and misunderstandings.

Activating Change

Industry prioritization of health equity mandates a cultural shift in treatment language and perspectives. Here are tangible recommendations:

1. Shift the narrative and power dynamic: Practitioners and providers must shift from viewing compliant and “obedient” patients to persons provided the respect and space to partner in their treatment decisions. Autonomy and self-determination remain enduring ethical principles and amplify attention to cultural perspectives.

2. Coping with the human condition is universal: Most patients and their caregivers experience fear and anxiety about their health conditions and those of their loved ones. A majority worry about diagnosis, prognosis, and quality of life. Everyone uses some defense mechanism to cope or not (e.g., denial, isolation, projection, displacement). The reality of the health experience often occurs without warning, and usually when least expected. We must give people the grace and space to cope with it.

3. Engage to understand patient and care giver rationale: To embrace cultural awareness and humility we must seek to understand patient and caregiver behaviors. We must eliminate implicit biases rather than empower them through quality metrics and measures; “these biases reinforce blame on the patients rather than look to the system and/or the competencies of the clinicians”; big nod to my friend Michael Garrett for this quote!

4. Assess for Psychosocial Needs: This arena is a top priority for organizations and most I know are on the case to integrate reflective screening tools into their efforts. I appreciate that far more resources are needed for all of those who need them. However, let’s make sure the right team members are employed for assessment and referral of patients, including community health workers, case management assistants, and health service coordinators. The outcomes are clear about their merits to assess across the touchpoints of care for:

  • Health and digital health literacy
  • Cultural preferences for treatment (e.g., medication, provider gender)
  • HRSNs, financial, and other impediments to care (e.g., co-pays, medical debt, lack of family support, isolation, transportation, incarceration, techquity) 

5. Use Non-Judgmental Communication: It is critical we set an inclusive tone to care, including but not limited to:

  • Maintain an affirming presence to establish trust 
  • Ask the patient to verify their gender and pronouns 
  • Ask the patient to verify their race and ethnicity
  • Ask the patient to identify their family or support system, regardless of blood relation
  • Demonstrate empathic and reflective listening 
  • Respect client autonomy by allowing the person to speak 
  • Empower patient through use of open-ended questions, such as, ‘What matters most to you?” or “What can I do for you today?”
  • Respond, clarify, and confirm, instead of reacting
  • Honor the patients religious and cultural beliefs, values, and choices

(Fink-Samnick & Garrett, 2023) 

Unconditional respect between patients and providers is difficult, but not impossible. Little will change toward engaging patients in their needed care until we stop blaming them for the industry’s shortcomings.

Health Equity and the Social Determinants of Health Are NOT Synonyms

Successful health equity strategies must be inclusive, and focus on all marginalized and minoritized persons and their communities. Any lesser view will continue to yield a faulty health equity equation. 

I delayed writing this blog to not compete with a recently published article in CMSA Today on The Social Determinants of Health: Case Management’s Next Mandate. It’s a quick 5-minute read if you haven’t gotten to it yet. However, that additional week gave me time to review another important and slightly longer read, the National of Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report, Federal Policy to Advance Racial, Ethnic, and Tribal Health Equity 

Report Overview and Missteps

This well-intended report from the National Academies highlights the mandate for macro-level oversight of three disparity domains, as reflected in the title. There was affirmation how the social determinants of health and mental health (SDoH and MH) and the policies that shape them contribute to hindering and advancing health equity. Valuable recommendations included:

  • Creating a permanent federal body responsible for improving racial, ethnic, and tribal equity across the federal government
  • Development by Congress of a score card to assess the impact on health equity of all proposed federal legislation in the future, and
  • Having Federal agencies conduct an equity audit of their current policies. 
  • Collecting more accurate and complete population data for minoritized communities; those social (racial) groups that are marginalized or persecuted due to systemic oppression. 
  • Improving coordination among federal agencies
  • Supporting better inclusion of community input, and 
  • Increasing federal support and access for state and local programs.

These recommendations were sound, as the communities highlighted all face considerable obstacles in accessing optimal physical and behavioral health. Yet, the report suffers from two common flaws that I often identify when reviewing published works on this topic:

  1. Aligning health equity attainment only with the SDoH and MH, and 
  2. Viewing only racial and ethnic populations in the context of the discussion.

Health Equity and the SDoH Are Not Synonyms

Few things annoy me more than short-sighted views of the healthcare horizon in the context of our health equity challenge. I get especially irritated when health disparities are attributed to the SDoH alone. For example, I often hear presenters discuss high mortality rates for minoritized populations and attribute these poor outcomes to poverty and low socioeconomic status, unemployment, and lesser education. Maternal mortality for Black Women is >2.6 X that of White Women, though this particular data point was independent of income, education, or other elements commonly associated with health disparities. 

These faulty views impede accurate comprehension of the full scope of factors obstructing health equity, including systemic and structural racism, implicit and explicit biases, and the political determinants of health (PDoH). This erroneous perspective perpetuates generations of historical, experiential, and other event traumas endured by these populations. Patients continue to be blamed for their poor health outcomes rather than the system (and its providers) that created the chasms in care to begin with. 

Inadequate data to reflect minoritized populations has led to a risk-management ripple-effect. Faulty algorithms have been identified across clinical decision-making and interviewing models leading to inaccurate risk assessment, treatment recommendations, and medication dosages. Poor operational and fiscal outcomes intersect with quality and safety concerns, especially when the data used does not accurately reflect the clinical needs of the population. 

Health Equity Includes More than Race and Ethnicity

Achieving health equity involves taking dedicated action to improve the access, quality, and experience of healthcare for all individuals, populations, and communities. There is no doubt that race and ethnicity are key constructs for research attention and action, with abysmal morbidity and mortality rates. The National Academies report notes:  

  • Life expectancy for non-Hispanic Whites at 78.9 years of age compared to 75.3 for Blacks, and 73.1 for the American Indian and Alaska Native populations.

However, other marginalized populations face equally worrisome barriers to equitable care access and treatment. Of equal importance are gender orientation, age, and individuals with physical, cognitive, developmental, and mental health disabilities, to name a few areas. These populations are too often left out of health equity discussions:

  • Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations have a higher incidence than non-SGM of developing chronic diseases (e.g., asthma, arthritis, diabetes, kidney disease, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, heart attack, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)), and more frequently deal with barriers to care from discrimination, let alone cost.
  • People living with disabilities (PLWD) have poorer health than the general population and are at a greater risk of injury and of developing non-communicable chronic diseases and age-related health conditions at earlier ages. 
  • Rampant gender disparities present in pain management, especially for those who identify as women. They experience “gendered treatment” across healthcare settings and with symptoms devalued or dismissed by their healthcare providers. This study’s results were also independent of socioeconomic status, education, or other health-related social needs.

The President of the National Academy of Medicine, Dr. Victor J. Dzau is correct that “Addressing the nation’s racial and ethnic health disparities is an imperative for the medical community.”; I would also add the priority for behavioral health given the current societal demand; after all, there is no health without mental health and visa-versa. However, efforts that limit health equity strategies to racial and ethnic disparities are short-sighted. Successful diversity, equity, and inclusion imperatives require the voice of every societal stakeholder across the entire cultural schema. 

Health Equity Actions Advance

Attaining health equity involves dedicated action to improve the access, quality, and experience of healthcare overall. This translates to intentional work by everyone, from those in data analysis, and learning and development, to persons specializing in process improvement and data measurement. This means:

  1. Developing quality metrics for health plans, health systems, and other entities that focus on more than reactive, short-term return on investment metrics, such as readmissions, patient engagement, and patient satisfaction. These antiquated data points only blame patients for poor outcomes through use of language such as “non-compliant”, rather than put accountability for change in the hands of providers. 
  2. Ensuring quality improvement efforts reduce unnecessary care utilization (e.g., ED visits, hospitalization), while simultaneously increasing access to preventative and primary care, behavioral health, and specialty care; this means adding concordant providers and approaches to care, which has been addressed in prior blog posts.
  3. Shift case management back to a proactive vs. reactive model; discharge planning is not the sole priority. Instead, case management competencies must highlight swift assessment of patients and their support systems, care coordination, interprofessional collaboration, effective communication, and outcomes management, while heeding professional ethical and compliance standards.
  4. Educate policy makers on inclusive health equity frameworks such as by Peterson et al. (2020). This robust framework accounts for equity and justice at the core of health outcomes, multiple and interacting spheres of influence, and a historical and life-course perspective (e.g., historical, experiential, developmental traumas). 
  5. Reinforce a sense of belongingness by everyone, especially persons from underserved communities. All patients and their families should feel seen, heard, and safe in the healthcare sector. This outcome can be measured by patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs), employee satisfaction and engagement surveys, and methods that involve analysis of these measures through demographics of race, ethnicity, and gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical and developmental disabilities, and socioeconomic status.

The Call to Action

“Our industry achieves the highest level of health for all persons, only when all voices are included. Communities that commit to health equity make all persons feel valued, and do so via concerted and ongoing attention. It is only through this all-encompassing effort that avoidable inequities are identified and addressed, historical and contemporary injustices are eliminated, and healthcare disparities are mitigated.” (Fink-Samnick & Garrett, 2023). 

Successful health equity strategies must be inclusive, and focus on all marginalized and minoritized persons and their communities. Any lesser view will continue to yield a faulty health equity equation. All populations deserve better.

The Case for Diversity in Health and Behavioral Health Professions is More Than Powerful: It’s an Interprofessional Mandate

The face of the current health and behavioral health workforce fails to mirror the workforce it cares for. The recent SCOTUS decision will only further negate cross-sector efforts to attract, admit, train and, sustain the inclusive workforce patients need. What must happen to mitigate this massive gap in care?

I am a fan of the Commonwealth Fund’s issue briefs, and the recent one on The Case for Diversity in Health Professions Remains Powerful was especially significant. The messaging was in direct response to the latest SCOTUS decision on Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. For those who missed it, this decision removed “race-conscious affirmative action” in undergraduate admissions. This decision is poised to drop Black and Hispanic admissions by at least 10%, and strike a blow to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education. The ripple-effect of this decision across all historically vulnerable populations was made clear in GLAAD’s post-decision statement: 

 “This decision inaccurately and unfairly limits access to the American dream, and drags our entire country backward, upending decades of precedent and progress. Equity for Black Americans and all people of color, including LGBTQ people, is essential to our democracy, economy, and future. This decision could also open the door for challenges to DEI practices in business settings and it is critical that companies and educational institutions respond with loud commitments to continue best practices for inclusion.”

Gaping wholistic health disparities already limit access to necessary physical, behavioral, and psychosocial health. The face of the current health and behavioral health workforce fails to mirror the workforce it cares for. The recent SCOTUS decision will only further negate cross-sector efforts to attract, admit, train and, sustain the inclusive workforce patients need. This action has great potential to inflict greater harm to a population already dealing with historical, experiential, developmental and other traumas. What must happen to mitigate this massive gap in care?

The Current Discordant Reality

I was educated and trained at a time when practitioners were often taught that anyone could work with anyone; I fought the opposing views for years. However, the research to support concordant care is equally compelling. I feel strongly that we must teach and emphasize the importance of cultural humility and work to eliminate implicit and explicit biases in practice. But, we also have an ethical obligation to be sensitive to the cultural nuances that come with caring for others. Every patient deserves to feel safe and a sense of belonging in the context of their care and treatment.

Academic programs across every discipline are working overtime to fill the massive void of practitioners available to treat underserved communities and their populations. Conclusive data validates how patient-provider concordance makes a difference in the quality of patient engagement, trust, and satisfaction. Patients do better in treatment when they feel that their providers and practitioners understand them and look like, and this reality transcends the cultural schema. However, current workforce demographics fails to ensure any level of concordant care.

A recent report  of medical residents yielded: 

  • Black men make up less than 3 %of all physicians
  • <1 percent identify as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or other, Pacific Islander

For active physicians:

  • Persons who identify as men comprise a majority of the physician workforce: 63% vs. 37% (women) 
  • Persons who identify as women comprise >50% of the medical specialties focused on children, women, and families (e.g., reproductive health, pediatrics, neonatal and perinatal medicine, and child and adolescent psychiatry). 
  • 64 %: White
  • 20.6 %: Asian 
  • 6.9%: Hispanic, and 5.7 %: Black or African American. 
  • Barely 1 %: multiple races and non-Hispanic
  • < .3%: American Indian or Alaska Native or
  • .1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Data for mental health practitioners yield equally concerning results, particularly in light of the high demand for care. A survey >37,000 mental health professionals yielded abysmal numbers that fail to reflect the diversity of populations requiring intervention and treatment:

  • 74.2%: White  
  • 7.9%: Black or African American 
  • 7.9%: Hispanic or Latino.
  • 3.1 %: Asian
  • .7%: American Indian or Alaska Native

There are insufficient health and behavioral health professionals trained to work with the LGBTQIA++ community, and ensure patient safety, trust, and satisfaction with their care. 

Persons with Disabilities have limited representation in the healthcare workforce. A report from 2022 revealed:

  • 7.9% employed within healthcare with 4% as practitioners and 4% in healthcare support roles

The industry has miles to go toward ensuring a concordant health and behavioral health system and workforce that matches the face of the population it is entrusted to care for. How else can patients feel seen, heard, and assured of the care they deserve?

Advancing Action

I rarely post dramatic data without offering ways to mitigate the gaps in care presented. Considerable action across industry sectors is being dedicated to attaining a more diverse health and behavioral health workforce. The efforts in play comprise an exhaustive list, but a few novel ones are listed below. Add others that you may be aware of in the comments section at the end of this post.

The Smallest Advocacy Actions Can Yield the Greatest Reward

My recent travels reminded me how much satisfaction can be gained by advocacy on behalf of a larger group of individuals.

The universe provides us interesting lessons, and usually when we least expect them. That mantra about the journey being as meaningful as the destination applies to this blog, but in a different way than you might expect. While the theme of this post alludes to the importance of equity and response to trauma, it is not my traditional fierce messaging. Instead, this post offers my reflections on the rewards that can come from contributing to the greater good.

Where it Started

This last month has been full of conference travel, with my usual array of presentations and panel discussions. I was honored with the publication of my fifth book (The Ethical Case Manager: Tools and Tactics) and also inducted as a Case Management Fellow (FCM™) by the Case Management Society of America (CMSA), and the first social worker to do so. These accolades are important career milestones for which I’m grateful. Yet, these milestones paled in comparison to one experience that occurred around the same time. That event reminded me how much satisfaction can be gained when one small action is taken on behalf of a larger group of individuals.

These past weeks saw travel challenges for much of the population. The experiential trauma for all traveling during this timeframe was palpable, and due to events that were usually beyond each person’s control. This loss of power left travelers reeling. There were flight delays courtesy of extreme weather conditions, workforce shortages, and flight cancellations. There was even a substation fire that prompted a lengthy hold on flight departures and arrivals at one large international airport.

Who sat at airports for endless hours or days, in hopes of getting to their anticipated destination? How many slept on airport furniture or even floors? Who missed conferences, business meetings, family, or other long-awaited celebrations? Who missed flight connections by a matter of minutes? How frustrating to see your connecting flight at the neighboring gate upon landing, but unable to sprint off the plane quickly enough to get on board!

Where it Went

I was among the lucky ones. While several of my flights were delayed, I always got to my destination. Yet, the experiences for one flight impacted me greatly. I was heading home from a conference in Miami. That event fell during the initial, and often chaotic, June vacation week. The flight was loaded with travelers embarking on international trips, and catching connections at my destination, Dulles Airport in Herndon, Virginia. 

A large band of thunderstorms delayed our departure from Miami by 90 minutes and threw passengers into a panicked state. Some individuals had planned their trips for months, while others had sudden family and business emergencies to manage abroad. Even once we were in the air, flight attendants worked continuously to calm upset passengers throughout the aircraft and contact various airlines to hold connecting flights, as possible. Some of these flights were also delayed, which somewhat eased the worry of already tired and, in some cases, traumatized passengers.

Upon landing at Dulles, an announcement was made by the flight attendant to allow travelers with connecting flights to disembark first. I had a sneaking suspicion that this action would be hard to implement and wasn’t wrong. Everyone stood up to grab their bags and deplane. Here was my opportunity to help! I was close to the front of plane and in a pivotal position to be an enforcer of this one simple and logical request. Little did I know that I had a collaborator seated nearby who was equally committed to doing the right thing, and for all passengers.

My collaborator sat directly across the aisle from me, and spent most of the trip consoling the passenger next to her. This person was visibly upset about the disruption to her travel. The flight attendants were able to confirm that this passenger’s connection flight was three gates away and being held for her arrival. Yet, her worry remained at a fever pitch.

My collaborator and I stepped up simultaneously and into action. We realized that some people might not feel empowered to get off the plane, especially those persons sitting toward the back. We directed passengers who did not need to run for a flight to stay in their seats. There were some interesting expressions and explicatives shared, though everyone ultimately got our drift and pitched in to support the efforts. Within minutes, close to 180 passengers successfully (and gratefully) deplaned. My aisle-mate and I were among the last passengers to leave, and with appreciation of the flight crew.

How it Mattered

I slowly walked to the airport shuttle, then turned around to see my collaborator behind me. We smiled at each other and chatted about our actions. We treated others as we would want to be treated if in the same situation. We advocated for the human condition, which was what I was trained to do as a board-certified case manager and clinical social worker. She and I were also in agreement about one key takeaway from this experience, which more than equaled, if not exceeded any of my recent accolades. Our advocacy takes all forms. Yet, even the smallest advocacy actions can make the biggest difference to others, and in turn, can provide us the greatest reward.