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

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.

Ethics for pandemics beyond influenza: Ebola, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and anticipating future ethical challenges in pandemic preparedness and response.

The unprecedented outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa has raised several novel ethical issues for global outbreak preparedness. It has also illustrated that familiar ethical issues in infectious disease management endure despite considerable efforts to understand and mitigate such issues in the wake of past outbreaks. To improve future global outbreak preparedness and response, we must examine these shortcomings and reflect upon the current state of ethical preparedness. To this end, we focus our efforts in this article on the examination of one substantial area: ethical guidance in pandemic plans. We argue that, due in part to their focus on considerations arising specifically in relation to pandemics of influenza origin, pandemic plans and their existing ethical guidance are ill-equipped to anticipate and facilitate the navigation of unique ethical challenges that may arise in other infectious disease pandemics. We proceed by outlining three reasons why this is so, and situate our analysis in the context of the EVD outbreak and the threat posed by drug-resistant tuberculosis: (1) different infectious diseases have distinct characteristics that challenge anticipated or existing modes of pandemic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery, (2) clear, transparent, context-specific ethical reasoning and justification within current influenza pandemic plans are lacking, and (3) current plans neglect the context of how other significant pandemics may manifest. We conclude the article with several options for reflecting upon and ultimately addressing ethical issues that may emerge with different infectious disease pandemics.

Dental safety net providers' experiences with service delivery during the first year of COVID-19 should inform dental pandemic preparedness.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disrupted oral health care delivery and revealed gaps in dental public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR). Emerging dental PHEPR frameworks can be strengthened by means of understanding the experiences of the discipline's frontline workers-dental safety net providers-during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Experienced qualitative researchers interviewed dental safety net directors and clinicians (n = 21) in 6 states to understand their experiences delivering care from March 2020 through February 2021. Interview transcriptions were analyzed using iterative codes to identify major and minor themes. Conventional qualitative validity checks were used continuously to ensure impartiality and rigor. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified: unpredictability caused concerns among staff members and patients, while also deepening fulfilling collaborations; care delivery was guided by means of various resources that balanced safety, flexibility, and respect for autonomy; and pandemic-driven changes to oral health care delivery are timely, long-lasting, and can be somewhat fraught. CONCLUSIONS: The human, material, and policy resources that providers used to control infections, serve vulnerable patients, maintain clinic solvency, and address provider burnout during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic can improve dental PHEPR. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dental PHEPR should address concerns beyond infection control within and between practice models, governmental agencies, and professional organizations. Examples of such concerns include, but are not limited to, guideline synchronization, materials exigencies, task shifting, and provider resilience.

Information Sharing and Community Resilience: Toward a Whole Community Approach to Surveillance and Combatting the "Infodemic".

Developing and strengthening systems for information sharing as well as detecting and addressing dis/misinformation can not only protect capacity for public health emergency preparedness and response, but potentially increase overall community resilience and social capital. More actively involving citizens in the government's collection and sharing of information can generate more public buy-in so people will be more invested in making certain that such information is not arbitrarily dismissed or drowned out by conspiracy theories. Such an approach may have the added the benefit of creating stronger collaborative connections between government, individual citizens, and civic organizations to promote overall resilience. More community involvement in terms of the collection and dissemination of information can provide value in terms of preparation for a public health emergency by bolstering surveillance efforts to detect a threat early on. Getting the public more integrated into the public health information system can also be valuable in terms of diminishing the threat of mis/disinformation. Building up relationships between the public and the public health sector can advance the mission of improving community resilience through education, engagement, and collaboration. In this review, we will examine existing evidence for this approach and will then conclude with possible new approaches.

Developing a Concept of Operations Template to Guide Collaborative Disaster Research Response Between Academic Public Health and Public Health Agencies.

Research conducted in the context of a disaster or public health emergency is essential to improve knowledge about its short- and long-term health consequences, as well as the implementation and effectiveness of response and recovery strategies. Integrated approaches to conducting Disaster Research Response (DR2) can answer scientific questions, while also providing attendant value for operational response and recovery. Here, we propose a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) template to guide the collaborative development and implementation of DR2 among academic public health and public health agencies, informed by previous literature, semi-structured interviews with disaster researchers from academic public health across the United States, and discussion groups with public health practitioners. The proposed CONOPS outlines actionable strategies to address DR2 issues before, during, and after disasters for public health scholars and practitioners who seek to operationalize or enhance their DR2 programs. Additional financial and human resources will be necessary to promote widespread implementation of collaborative DR2 programs.

Public Health Emergency Preparedness System Evaluation Criteria and Performance Metrics: A Review of Contributions of the CDC-Funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers.

OBJECTIVES: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) conducted research from 2008 to 2015 aimed to improve the complex public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system. This paper summarizes PERRC studies that addressed the development and assessment of criteria for evaluating PHEPR and metrics for measuring their efficiency and effectiveness. METHODS: We reviewed 171 PERRC publications indexed in PubMed between 2009 and 2016. These publications derived from 34 PERRC research projects. We identified publications that addressed the development or assessment of criteria and metrics pertaining to PHEPR systems and describe the evaluation methods used and tools developed, the system domains evaluated, and the metrics developed or assessed. RESULTS: We identified 29 publications from 12 of the 34 PERRC projects that addressed PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics. We grouped each study into 1 of 3 system domains, based on the metrics developed or assessed: (1) organizational characteristics (n = 9), (2) emergency response performance (n = 12), and (3) workforce capacity or capability (n = 8). These studies addressed PHEPR system activities including responses to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the 2011 tsunami, as well as emergency exercise performance, situational awareness, and workforce willingness to respond. Both PHEPR system process and outcome metrics were developed or assessed by PERRC studies. CONCLUSIONS: PERRC researchers developed and evaluated a range of PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics that should be considered by system partners interested in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities. Nonetheless, the monitoring and measurement problem in PHEPR is far from solved. Lack of standard measures that are readily obtained or computed at local levels remains a challenge for the public health preparedness field. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:626-638).