Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40246560›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Lessons learnt from the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome: a qualitative study of western Washington's healthcare community response.

Matias Korfmacher, Cat Hartwell, Kelly Hill, Nathaniel Matthews-Trigg, Jeremy Hess, Amruta Nori-Sarma, Gregory Wellenius, Nicole Errett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Matias KorfmacherDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-0895-866X
Cat HartwellDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4609-4554
Kelly HillNorthwest Healthcare Response Network, Tukwila, Washington, USA.
Nathaniel Matthews-TriggDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jeremy HessDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0440-2459
Amruta Nori-SarmaCenter for Climate and Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2335-6811
Gregory WelleniusCenter for Climate and Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0427-7376
Nicole ErrettDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA nerrett@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8247-8336

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome was Washington state's deadliest recorded weather event and presented unprecedented response challenges to the state's health sector. Understanding the impacts of this extreme heat event (EHE) on the sector as well as the barriers to and facilitators of implementing effective heat response is critical to preparing for future events, which are happening more frequently in the region due to climate change.

designGuided by an implementation science framework, we convened listening sessions and focus groups of the health sector in western Washington to reflect on regional response efforts.

settingHealth sector organisations in 15 counties in western Washington State, USA: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston and Whatcom.

participantsA convenience sample of 109 listening group participants was recruited through the professional networks of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network, a regional healthcare coalition. 27 of the health sector professionals were recruited using purposive sampling to participate in seven focus groups organised by organisation type.

resultsThe co-presence of the COVID-19 pandemic, limited staff capacity, resource acquisition challenges and inadequate regional collaboration emerged as key barriers, while advanced planning, indoor cooling capabilities, adapting strategies to local needs, robust internal relationships and strong external partnerships were reported to facilitate effective response. Establishing centralised coordination ahead of heat events, making improvements to the cooling capabilities of the built environment, developing plans and policies for EHEs that have co-benefits for other events, adopting evidence-informed response strategies, institutionalising the knowledge and relationships developed through prior events and improving evaluative processes (such as developing real-time monitoring capacity) will enable more effective response to future EHEs.

conclusionsWestern Washington's health sector implemented EHE response activities that enabled essential service continuity, despite limited resources, unfamiliarity with EHEs and other systemic challenges. The recency of the heat dome presents an opportunity to incorporate lessons learnt into practice, policies, plans and built environment; these are necessary improvements ahead of future large-scale events the region may experience in the coming decades.

Indexed as

Extreme HeatClimate ChangeFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchWashingtonClimate ChangePUBLIC HEALTHQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID40246560
PMCPMC12007061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.