Lessons learned from academic medical centers’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic in partnership with the Navajo Nation

Introduction: Structural forces that drive health inequalities are magnified in crises. This was especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic, and minority communities were particularly affected. The University of California San Francisco and Health, Equity, Action, Leadership Initiative jointly sent volunteer teams of nurses and doctors to work in the Navajo Nation during the COVID-19 pandemic. This presented an opportunity to explore how academic medical centers (AMCs) could effectively partner with vulnerable communities to provide support during healthcare crises. Therefore, the aims of this study were to describe volunteers’ perspectives of academic-community partnerships by exploring their personal, professional and societal insights and lessons learned based on their time in the Navajo Nation during COVID-19. Methods: We recruited key informants using purposeful sampling of physicians and nurses who volunteered to go to the Navajo Nation during the spring 2020 COVID-19 surge, as well as hospital administrators and leaders involved in organizing the COVID-19 efforts. We used in-depth qualitative interviews to explore key informants’ experiences pre-departure, during their stay, and after their return, as well as perspectives of the partnership between an AMC and the Navajo Nation. We used thematic analysis to systematically identify, analyze and report patterns (themes) within the data. Results: In total, 37 clinicians and hospital administrators were interviewed including 14 physicians, 16 nurses, and 7 health system leaders. Overall, we found 4 main themes each with several subthemes that defined the partnership between the AMC and the Navajo Nation. Mission and values incorporated civic duty, community engagement, leadership commitment and employee dedication. Solidarity, trust and humility encompassed pre-existing trust, workforce sustainability, humility and erasure of ‘savior narratives.’ Coordination included logistical coordination, flexibility, selectivity of who and what traveled to the response and coordination around media response. Workforce preparation and support encompassed understanding of historical context and providing healthcare in limited settings, dangers of inadequate preparation and the need for emotional support. Conclusion: This study provides guidelines which AMCs might use to develop and improve partnerships they have or would like to develop with vulnerable communities. These guidelines may even be broadly applied to partnerships outside of a pandemic response. Importantly, such partnerships need to be built with trust and with an eye towards sustainability and long-term relationships as opposed to ‘medical missions’.