Disasters exacerbate inequities in health care. Health systems use the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) to plan and coordinate their disaster response. This study examines how 2 health systems prioritized equity in implementing the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and identifies factors that influenced implementation.

This is a qualitative case comparison study, involving semi-structured interviews with 29 individuals from 2 US academic health systems. Strategies for promoting health equity were categorized by social determinants of health. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided analysis using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach.

The health systems used various strategies to incorporate health equity throughout implementation, addressing all 5 social determinants of health domains. Facilitators included HICS principles, external partnerships, community relationships, senior leadership, health equity experts and networks, champions, equity-stratified data, teaming, and a culture of health equity. Barriers encompassed clarity of the equity representative role, role ambiguity for equity representatives, tokenism, competing priorities, insufficient resource allocation, and lack of preparedness.

These findings elucidate how health systems centered equity during HICS implementation. Health systems and regulatory bodies can use these findings as a foundation to revise the HICS and move toward a more equitable disaster response.

To determine whether implementation of a multifaceted intervention would significantly reduce the incidence of central line–associated bloodstream infections.

Prospective cohort collaborative.

Intensive care units of the Abu Dhabi Health Services Company hospitals in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.

A bundled intervention consisting of 3 components was implemented as part of the program. It consisted of a multifaceted approach that targeted clinician use of evidence-based infection prevention recommendations, tools that supported the identification of local barriers to these practices, and implementation ideas to help ensure patients received the practices. Comprehensive unit-based safety teams were created to improve safety culture and teamwork. Finally, the measurement and feedback of monthly infection rate data to safety teams, senior leaders, and staff in participating intensive care units was encouraged. The main outcome measure was the quarterly rate of central line–associated bloodstream infections.

Eighteen intensive care units from 7 hospitals in Abu Dhabi implemented the program and achieved an overall 38% reduction in their central line–associated bloodstream infection rate, adjusted at the hospital and unit level. The number of units with a quarterly central line–associated bloodstream infection rate of less than 1 infection per 1,000 catheter-days increased by almost 40% between the baseline and postintervention periods.

A significant reduction in the global morbidity and mortality associated with central line–associated bloodstream infections is possible across intensive care units in disparate settings using a multifaceted intervention.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;36(7):816–822