Key lessons learnt from COVID-19 intra-action reviews in the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Kosovo and North Macedonia 2020-2021: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Our study described how the WHO intra-action review (IAR) methodology was operationalised and customised in three Western Balkan countries and territories and the Republic of Moldova and analysed the common key findings to inform analyses of the lessons learnt from the pandemic response. DESIGN: We extracted data from the respective IAR reports and performed a qualitative thematic content analysis to identify common (between countries and territories) and cross-cutting (across the response pillars) themes on best practices, challenges and priority actions. The analysis involved three stages, namely: extraction of data, initial identification of emerging themes and review and definition of the themes. SETTING: IARs were conducted in the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Kosovo and the Republic of North Macedonia between December 2020 and November 2021. The IARs were conducted at different time points relative to the respective pandemic trajectories (14-day incidence rate ranging from 23 to 495 per 100 000). RESULTS: Case management was reviewed in all the IARs, while the infection prevention and control, surveillance and country-level coordination pillars were reviewed in three countries. The thematic content analysis identified four common and cross-cutting best practices, seven challenges and six priority recommendations. Recommendations included investing in sustainable human resources and technical capacities developed during the pandemic, providing continuous capacity-building and training (with regular simulation exercises), updating legislation, improving communication between healthcare providers at all levels of healthcare and enhancing digitalisation of health information systems. CONCLUSIONS: The IARs provided an opportunity for continuous collective reflection and learning with multisectoral engagement. They also offered an opportunity to review public health emergency preparedness and response functions in general, thereby contributing to generic health systems strengthening and resilience beyond COVID-19. However, success in strengthening the response and preparedness requires leadership and resource allocation, prioritisation and commitment by the countries and territories themselves.

Operationalisation of consensual One Health roadmaps in countries for improved IHR capacities and health security.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a devastating reminder that mitigating the threat of emerging zoonotic outbreaks relies on our collective capacity to work across human health, animal health and environment sectors. Despite the critical need for shared approaches, collaborative benchmarks in the International Health Regulations (IHR) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and more specifically the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) often reveal low levels of performance in collaborative technical areas (TAs), thus identifying a real need to work on the human-animal-environment interface to improve health security. The National Bridging Workshops (NBWs) proposed jointly by the World Organisation of Animal Health and World Health Organization (WHO) provide opportunity for national human health, animal health, environment and other relevant sectors in countries to explore the efficiency and gaps in their coordination for the management of zoonotic diseases. The results, gathered in a prioritised roadmap, support the operationalisation of the recommendations made during JEE for TAs where a multisectoral One Health approach is beneficial. For those collaborative TAs (12 out of 19 in the JEE), more than two-thirds of the recommendations can be implemented through one or multiple activities jointly agreed during NBW. Interestingly, when associated with the WHO Benchmark Tool for IHR, it appears that NBW activities are often associated with lower level of performance than anticipated during the JEE missions, revealing that countries often overestimate their capacities at the human-animal-environment interface. Deeper, more focused and more widely shared discussions between professionals highlight the need for concrete foundations of multisectoral coordination to meet goals for One Health and improved global health security through IHR.

IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops, a tool to operationalize the collaboration between human and animal health while advancing sector-specific goals in countries.

Collaborative, One Health approaches support governments to effectively prevent, detect and respond to emerging health challenges, such as zoonotic diseases, that arise at the human-animal-environmental interfaces. To overcome these challenges, operational and outcome-oriented tools that enable animal health and human health services to work specifically on their collaboration are required. While international capacity and assessment frameworks such as the IHR-MEF (International Health Regulations-Monitoring and Evaluation Framework) and the OIE PVS (Performance of Veterinary Services) Pathway exist, a tool and process that could assess and strengthen the interactions between human and animal health sectors was needed. Through a series of six phased pilots, the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshop (NBW) method was developed and refined. The NBW process gathers human and animal health stakeholders and follows seven sessions, scheduled across three days. The outputs from each session build towards the next one, following a structured process that goes from gap identification to joint planning of corrective measures. The NBW process allows human and animal health sector representatives to jointly identify actions that support collaboration while advancing evaluation goals identified through the IHR-MEF and the OIE PVS Pathway. By integrating sector-specific and collaborative goals, the NBWs help countries in creating a realistic, concrete and practical joint road map for enhanced compliance to international standards as well as strengthened preparedness and response for health security at the human-animal interface.

London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: public health surveillance and epidemiology.

Mass gatherings are regarded as potential risks for transmission of infectious diseases, and might compromise the health system of countries in which they are hosted. The evidence for increased transmission of infectious diseases at international sporting mass gatherings that attract many visitors from all over the world is not clear, and the evidence base for public health surveillance, epidemiology, and response at events such as the Olympics is small. However, infectious diseases are a recognised risk, and public health planning is, and should remain, a crucial part of the overall planning of sporting events. In this Series paper, we set out the planning and the surveillance systems that were used to monitor public health risks during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in the summer of 2012, and draw attention to the public health issues-infectious diseases and chemical, radiation, and environmental hazards-that arose. Although the absolute risk of health-protection problems, including infectious diseases, at sporting mass gatherings is small, the need for reassurance of the absence of problems is higher than has previously been considered; this could challenge conventional public health surveillance systems. Recognition of the limitations of health-surveillance systems needs to be part of the planning for future sporting events.

Non-communicable health risks during mass gatherings.

Mass gatherings (MGs) have been associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality from non-communicable diseases, accidents, and terrorist attacks, thus posing complex public health challenges. We assessed the health risks and public health responses to MGs to identify an evidence-based framework for public health interventions. Human stampedes and heat-related illnesses are the leading causes of mortality. Minor traumatic injuries and medical complaints are the main contributors to morbidity and, particularly, the need for on-site medical care. Infrastructure, crowd density and mood, weather, age, and sex determine the risks to health. Many predictive models for deployment of medical resources are proposed, but none have been validated. We identified the risks for mortality and morbidity during MGs, most efficient public health interventions, and need for robust research into health risks for non-communicable diseases during MGs.