Strengthening and utilizing response groups for emergencies flagship: a narrative review of the roll out process and lessons from the first year of implementation.

The World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa (WHO/AFRO) faces members who encounter annual disease epidemics and natural disasters that necessitate immediate deployment and a trained health workforce to respond. The gaps in this regard, further exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, led to conceptualizing the Strengthening and Utilizing Response Group for Emergencies (SURGE) flagship in 2021. This study aimed to present the experience of the WHO/AFRO in the stepwise roll-out process and the outcome, as well as to elucidate the lessons learned across the pilot countries throughout the first year of implementation. The details of the roll-out process and outcome were obtained through information and data extraction from planning and operational documents, while further anonymized feedback on various thematic areas was received from stakeholders through key informant interviews with 60 core actors using open-ended questionnaires. In total, 15 out of the 47 countries in WHO/AFRO are currently implementing the initiative, with a total of 1,278 trained and validated African Volunteers Health Corps-Strengthening and Utilizing Response Groups for Emergencies (AVoHC-SURGE) members in the first year. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has the highest number (214) of trained AVoHC-SURGE members. The high level of advocacy, the multi-sectoral-disciplinary approach in the selection process, the adoption of the one-health approach, and the uniqueness of the training methodology are among the best practices applauded by the respondents. At the same time, financial constraints were the most reported challenge, with ongoing strategies to resolve them as required. Six countries, namely Botswana, Mauritania, Niger, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Togo, have started benefiting from their trained AVoHC-SURGE members locally, while responders from Botswana and Rwanda were deployed internationally to curtail the recent outbreaks of cholera in Malawi and Kenya.

Analysis of the 2017-2018 Rift valley fever outbreak in Yirol East County, South Sudan: a one health perspective.

Introduction: the emergence and re-emergence of zoonotic diseases have threatened both human and animal health globally since their identification in the 20th century. Rift Valley fever (RVF) virus is a recurrent zoonotic disease in South Sudan, with the earliest RVF cases confirmed in 2007 in Kapoeta North County, Eastern Equatoria state. Methods: we analyzed national RVF outbreak data to describe the epidemiological pattern of the RVF outbreak in Yirol East county in Lakes State. The line list of cases (confirmed, probable, suspected, and non-cases) was used to describe the pattern and risk factors associated with the outbreak. The animal and human blood samples were tested using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) (Immunoglobulin IgG and IgM) and Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR). Qualitative data were collected from weekly RVF situation reports, and national guidelines and policies. Results: between December 2017 and December 2018, 58 suspected human RVF cases were reported. The cases were reclassified based on laboratory and investigations results, such that as of 16th December 2018, there were a total of six (10.3%) laboratory-confirmed, three (5.2%) probable, one (1.7%) suspected, and 48 (82.8%) non-cases were reported. A total of four deaths were reported during the outbreak (case fatality rate (CFR) 6.8% (4/58). A total of 28 samples were collected from animals; of these, six tested positives for RVF (positivity rate of 32.1% (9/28). The outbreak was announced in March 2018, after four months of the first reported suspected RVF case. Several factors were attributed to the delayed notification and outbreak announcement such as lack of multi-sectorial coordination at the state and county level, multi-sectoral coordination at national level mostly attended by public health experts from human health, inadequate animal health surveillance, poor coordination between livestock disease surveillance and public health surveillance, limited in-country laboratory diagnostic capacity, the laboratory results for the animal health took longer than expected, and lack of a national One Health approach strategy. Conclusion: the outbreak demonstrated gaps to investigate and respond to zoonotic disease outbreaks in South Sudan.

Use of mobile medical teams to fill critical gaps in health service delivery in complex humanitarian settings, 2017-2020: a case study of South Sudan.

The vulnerable populations in the protracted humanitarian crisis in South Sudan are faced with constrained access to health services and frequent disease outbreaks. Here, we describe the experiences of emergency mobile medical teams (eMMT) assembled by the World Health Organization (WHO) South Sudan to respond to public health emergencies. Interventions: the eMMTs, multidisciplinary teams based at national, state and county levels, are rapidly deployed to conduct rapid assessments, outbreak investigations, and initiate public health response during acute emergencies. The eMMTs were deployed to locations affected by flooding, conflicts, famine, and disease outbreaks. We reviewed records of deployment reports, outreach and campaign registers, and analyzed the key achievements of the eMMTs for 2017 through 2020. Achievements: the eMMTs investigated disease outbreaks including cholera, measles, Rift Valley fever and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in 13 counties, conducted mobile outreaches in emergency locations in 38 counties (320,988 consultations conducted), trained 550 healthcare workers including rapid response teams, and supported reactive measles vaccination campaigns in seven counties [148,726, (72-125%) under-5-year-old children vaccinated] and reactive oral cholera vaccination campaigns in four counties (355,790 vaccinated). The eMMT is relevant in humanitarian settings and can reduce excess morbidity and mortality and fill gaps that routine health facilities and health partners could not bridge. However, the scope of the services offered needs to be broadened to include mental and psychosocial care and a strategy for ensuring continuity of vaccination services and management of chronic conditions after the mobile outreach is instituted.

Assessment of COVID-19 pandemic responses in African countries: thematic synthesis of WHO intra-action review reports.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a review of intra-action review (IAR) reports of the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa. We highlight best practices and challenges and offer perspectives for the future. DESIGN: A thematic analysis across 10 preparedness and response domains, namely, governance, leadership, and coordination; planning and monitoring; risk communication and community engagement; surveillance, rapid response, and case investigation; infection prevention and control; case management; screening and monitoring at points of entry; national laboratory system; logistics and supply chain management; and maintaining essential health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: All countries in the WHO African Region were eligible for inclusion in the study. National IAR reports submitted by March 2021 were analysed. RESULTS: We retrieved IAR reports from 18 African countries. The COVID-19 pandemic response in African countries has relied on many existing response systems such as laboratory systems, surveillance systems for previous outbreaks of highly infectious diseases and a logistics management information system. These best practices were backed by strong political will. The key challenges included low public confidence in governments, inadequate adherence to infection prevention and control measures, shortages of personal protective equipment, inadequate laboratory capacity, inadequate contact tracing, poor supply chain and logistics management systems, and lack of training of key personnel at national and subnational levels. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that African countries' response to the COVID-19 pandemic was prompt and may have contributed to the lower cases and deaths in the region compared with countries in other regions. The IARs demonstrate that many technical areas still require immediate improvement to guide decisions in subsequent waves or future outbreaks.

COVID-19: lessons and experiences from South Africa's first surge.

On 5 March 2020, South Africa recorded its first case of imported COVID-19. Since then, cases in South Africa have increased exponentially with significant community transmission. A multisectoral approach to containing and mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 was instituted, led by the South African National Department of Health. A National COVID-19 Command Council was established to take government-wide decisions. An adapted World Health Organiszion (WHO) COVID-19 strategy for containing and mitigating the spread of the virus was implemented by the National Department of Health. The strategy included the creation of national and provincial incident management teams (IMTs), which comprised of a variety of work streams, namely, governance and leadership; medical supplies; port and environmental health; epidemiology and response; facility readiness and case management; emergency medical services; information systems; risk communication and community engagement; occupational health and safety and human resources. The following were the most salient lessons learnt between March and September 2020: strengthened command and control were achieved through both centralised and decentralised IMTs; swift evidenced-based decision-making from the highest political levels for instituting lockdowns to buy time to prepare the health system; the stringent lockdown enabled the health sector to increase its healthcare capacity. Despite these successes, the stringent lockdown measures resulted in economic hardship particularly for the most vulnerable sections of the population.