Dataset Information

Simulation exercises and after action reviews - analysis of outputs during 2016-2019 to strengthen global health emergency preparedness and response.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Under the International Health Regulations (2005) [IHR (2005)] Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, after action reviews (AAR) and simulation exercises (SimEx) are two critical components which measure the functionality of a country's health emergency preparedness and response under a "real-life" event or simulated situation. The objective of this study was to describe the AAR and SimEx supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) globally in 2016-2019.

Methods

In 2016-2019, WHO supported 63 AAR and 117 SimEx, of which 42 (66.7%) AAR reports and 56 (47.9%) SimEx reports were available. We extracted key information from these reports and created two central databases for AAR and SimEx, respectively. We conducted descriptive analysis and linked the findings according to the 13 IHR (2005) core capacities.

Results

Among the 42 AAR and 56 SimEx available reports, AAR and SimEx were most commonly conducted in the WHO African Region (AAR: n = 32, 76.2%; SimEx: n = 32, 52.5%). The most common public health events reviewed or tested in AAR and SimEx, respectively, were epidemics and pandemics (AAR: n = 38, 90.5%; SimEx: n = 46, 82.1%). For AAR, 10 (76.9%) of the 13 IHR core capacities were reviewed at least once, with no AAR conducted for food safety, chemical events, and radiation emergencies, among the reports available. For SimEx, all 13 (100.0%) IHR capacities were tested at least once. For AAR, the most commonly reviewed IHR core capacities were health services provision (n = 41, 97.6%), risk communication (n = 39, 92.9%), national health emergency framework (n = 39, 92.9%), surveillance (n = 37, 88.1%) and laboratory (n = 35, 83.3%). For SimEx, the most commonly tested IHR core capacity were national health emergency framework (n = 56, 91.1%), followed by risk communication (n = 48, 85.7%), IHR coordination and national IHR focal point functions (n = 45, 80.4%), surveillance (n = 31, 55.4%), and health service provision (n = 29, 51.8%). For AAR, the median timeframe between the end of the event and AAR was 125 days (range = 25-399 days).

Conclusions

WHO has recently published guidance for the planning, execution, and follow-up of AAR and SimEx. Through the guidance and the simplified reporting format provided, we hope to see more countries conduct AAR and SimEx and standardization in their methodology, practice, reporting and follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Copper FA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7705853 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImproving response capacities in the EU requires a good overview of capacities at both country and Union level. The International Health Regulations (2005) Monitoring and Evaluation framework assesses capacities in countries. It includes semi-quantitative tools such as State Parties Annual Report (SPAR) and Joint External Evaluation (JEE). After Action Reviews (AAR) and Simulation Exercises (SimEx) were included to identify weaknesses in the functionality of capacities which are not addressed bySPAR and JEE. This study presents an analysis of the use of qualitative tools at regional level, in Europe. It aims to identify their added value by comparing them to standardised monitoring tools and lessons learned from COVID-19, and considers ways to improve their use in assessing capacities in the EU.MethodsWe included 17 SimEx and 2 AAR organised by the European Commission between 2005 and 2018. We categorised a total of 357 recommendations according to the IHR (2005) core capacities and to the target audience of the recommendation. We analysed the data using language analysis software. Recommendations to countries were compared to SPAR and JEE indicators. Recommendations to EU agencies were compared to the current mandates of the EU agencies, and to lessons learnt during COVID-19.ResultsOf all extracted recommendations from the exercises, 59% (211/357) targeted EU agencies, 18% (64/357) targeted countries, and 16% (57/357) targeted both. Recommendations mainly addressed areas of IHR coordination (C2), heath emergency management (C7) and risk communication (C10), and not low scoring areas. Recommendations complement SPAR indicators by identifying gaps in functionality. Eight out of ten early lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic had been raised earlier as recommendations from exercises. Exercise reports did not include or result in action plans for implementation, but COVID-19 has accelerated implementation of some recommendations.ConclusionSimEx/AAR provide valuable insight into public health preparedness at EU level, as they assess functionality of preparedness and response mechanisms, point out gaps, and provide training and awareness on for participants, who often have key roles in public health emergencies. Better follow-up and implementation of recommendations is key to improve the regional preparedness for international public health incidents such as pandemics.

Project description:Successful emergency vaccination campaigns rely on effective deployment and vaccination plans. This applies to localised outbreaks as well as for pandemics. In the wake of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, analysis of the global Vaccine Deployment Initiative, through which the World Health Organization (WHO) donated pandemic influenza vaccines to countries in need, revealed that an absence of vaccine deployment plans in many countries significantly hindered vaccine deployment. Through the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2011, WHO is engaging in several capacity building activities to improve pandemic influenza preparedness and response and make provisions for access to vaccines and sharing of other benefits. The Framework calls for the development and exercise of operational plans for deployment of influenza vaccines to enhance pandemic preparedness. To this end, WHO has supported the development of PIPDeploy, an interactive, in-person table top simulation exercise to facilitate learning for emergency preparedness. It employs various game design elements including a game board, time pressure, leaderboards and teams to enhance participants' motivation. PIPDeploy formed part of five WHO Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Deployment Workshops attended by national-level managers responsible for pandemic influenza vaccine response predominantly in non-producing countries. The purpose of this study was to describe the features and application of PIPDeploy, and present findings of the evaluation of participants' experiences during the simulation involving a "hot wash" discussion and collection of quantitative data. The simulation's instructional approach was widely accepted by participants, who reported that the format was novel and engaging. They reflected on its utility for identifying gaps in their own vaccine deployment plans and regulatory frameworks for importation of vaccine products. All participants found the simulation relevant to their professional objectives. A range of other potential applications were suggested, including PIPDeploy's adaptation to sub-national contexts and to other epidemic diseases.

Project description:BackgroundDue to the uncommon nature of large-scale disasters and emergencies, public health practitioners often turn to simulated emergencies, known as "exercises", for preparedness assessment and improvement. Under the right conditions, exercises can also be used to conduct original public health systems research. This paper describes the integration of a research framework into a statewide operations-based exercise program in California as a systems-based approach for studying public health emergency preparedness and response.MethodsWe developed a research framework based on the premise that operations-based exercises conducted by medical and public health agencies can be described using epidemiologic concepts. Using this framework, we conducted a survey of key local and regional medical and health agencies throughout California following the 2010 Statewide Medical and Health Exercise. The survey evaluated: (1) the emergency preparedness capabilities activated and functions performed in response to the emergency scenario, and (2) the major challenges to inter-organizational communications and information management.ResultsThirty-five local health departments (LHDs), 24 local emergency medical services (EMS) agencies, 121 hospitals, and 5 Regional Disaster Medical and Health Coordinators/Specialists (RDMHC) responded to our survey, representing 57%, 77%, 26% and 83%, respectively, of target agencies in California. We found two sets of response capabilities were activated during the 2010 Statewide Exercise: a set of core capabilities that were common across all agencies, and a set of agency-specific capabilities that were more common among certain agency types. With respect to one response capability in particular, inter-organizational information sharing, we found that the majority of respondents' comments were related to the complete or partial failure of communications equipment or systems.ConclusionsUsing the 2010 Statewide Exercise in California as an opportunity to develop our research framework, we characterized several aspects of the public health and medical system's response to a standardized emergency scenario. From a research perspective, this study provides a potential new framework for conducting exercise-based research. From a practitioner's perspective, our results provide a starting point for preparedness professionals' dialogue about expected and actual organizational roles, responsibilities, and resource capacities within the public health system. Additionally, the identification of specific challenges to inter-organizational communications and information management offer specific areas for intervention.

Project description:Background Discussions of health system resilience and emergency management often highlight the importance of coordination and partnership across government and with other stakeholders. However, both coordination and partnership have been identified as areas requiring further research. This paper identifies characteristics and enablers of effective coordination for emergency preparedness and response, drawing on experience from different countries with a range of shocks, including floods, drought, and COVID-19. Methods The paper synthesises evidence from a set of reports related to research, evaluation and technical assistance projects, bringing together evidence from 11 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Methods for the original reports included primary data collection through interviews, focus groups and workshop discussions, analysis of secondary data, and document review. Reports were synthesised using a coding framework, and quality of evidence was considered for reliability of the findings. Results The reports highlighted the role played by coordination and partnership in preparedness and response, and identified four key areas that characterise and enable effective coordination. First, coordination needs to be inclusive, bringing together different government sectors and levels, and stakeholders such as development agencies, universities, the private sector, local leaders and civil society, with equitable gender representation. Second, structural aspects of coordination bodies are important, including availability of coordination structures and regular meeting fora; clear roles, mandates and sufficient authority; the value of building on existing coordination mechanisms; and ongoing functioning of coordination bodies, before and after crises. Third, organisations responsible for coordination require sufficient capacity, including staff, funding, communication infrastructure and other resources, and learning from previous emergencies. Fourth, effective coordination is supported by high-level political leadership and incentives for collaboration. Country experience also highlighted interactions between these components, and with the wider health system and governance architecture, pointing to the need to consider coordination as part of a complex adaptive system. Conclusion COVID-19 and other shocks have highlighted the importance of effective coordination and partnership across government and with other stakeholders. Using country experience, the paper identifies a set of recommendations to strengthen coordination for health system resilience and emergency management. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08859-6.

Project description:ImportanceDiagnostic imaging is frequently performed as part of the emergency department (ED) evaluation of children. Whether imaging patterns differ by race and ethnicity is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate racial and ethnic differences in the performance of common ED imaging studies and to examine patterns across diagnoses.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study evaluated visits by patients younger than 18 years to 44 US children's hospital EDs from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2019.ExposuresNon-Hispanic Black and Hispanic compared with non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of visits for each race/ethnicity group with at least 1 diagnostic imaging study, defined as plain radiography, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging. The major diagnostic categories classification system was used to examine race/ethnicity differences in imaging rates by diagnoses.ResultsA total of 13 087 522 visits by 6 230 911 children and adolescents (mean [SD] age, 5.8 [5.2] years; 52.7% male) occurred during the study period. Diagnostic imaging was performed during 3 689 163 visits (28.2%). Imaging was performed in 33.5% of visits by non-Hispanic White patients compared with 24.1% of visits by non-Hispanic Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.60-0.60) and 26.1% of visits by Hispanic patients (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.66-0.67). Adjusting for confounders, visits by non-Hispanic Black (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.82-0.83) and Hispanic (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.87-0.87) patients were less likely to include any imaging study compared with visits by non-Hispanic White patients. Limiting the analysis to only visits by nonhospitalized patients, the adjusted OR for imaging was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.79-0.80) for visits by non-Hispanic Black patients and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.84-0.85) for visits by Hispanic patients. Results were consistent in analyses stratified by public and private insurance groups and did not materially differ by diagnostic category.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic children were less likely to receive diagnostic imaging during ED visits compared with non-Hispanic White children. Further investigation is needed to understand and mitigate these potential disparities in health care delivery and to evaluate the effect of these differential imaging patterns on patient outcomes.