ABSTRACT
Epidemic-prone diseases have high adverse impacts and pose important threats to global health security. This study aimed to assess levels of health facility preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Guinea. This was a cross-sectional study in public and private health facilities/services across 13 Guinean health districts. Managers and healthcare workers (HCWs) from departments in each facility/service were interviewed. Descriptive statistics and comparisons were presented using Pearson's Chi-Squared Test or Fischer exact test. Totally, 197 managers and 1020 HCWs participated in the study. Guidance documents and dedicated spaces for management/isolation of suspected COVID-19 cases were available only in 29% and 26% of facilities, respectively. Capacities to collect (9%) and safely transport (14%) samples were low. Intensive care units (5%), dedicated patient beds (3%), oxygenators (2%), and respirators (0.6%) were almost lacking. While 36% of facilities/services had received infection prevention and control supplies, only 20% had supplies sufficient for 30 days. Moreover, only 9% of HCWs had received formal training on COVID-19. The main sources of information for HCWs were the media (90%) and the internet (58%). Only 30% of HCWs had received personal protective equipment, more in the public sector (p<0.001) and in Conakry (p=0.022). This study showed low levels of preparedness of health facilities/services in Guinea and highlighted a lack of confidence among HCWs who felt unsafe at their workplace. Better governance to improve and maintain the capacity of the Guinean health system to respond to current and future epidemics is needed.
Subject(s)
Disaster Preparedness , COVID-19 , Delivery of Health Care , International System of UnitsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In March, 2016, a flare-up of Ebola virus disease was reported in Guinea, and in response ring vaccination with the unlicensed rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine was introduced under expanded access, the first time that an Ebola vaccine has been used in an outbreak setting outside a clinical trial. Here we describe the safety of rVSV-ZEBOV candidate vaccine and operational feasibility of ring vaccination as a reactive strategy in a resource-limited rural setting. METHODS: Approval for expanded access and compassionate use was rapidly sought and obtained from relevant authorities. Vaccination teams and frozen vaccine were flown to the outbreak settings. Rings of contacts and contacts of contacts were defined and eligible individuals, who had given informed consent, were vaccinated and followed up for 21 days under good clinical practice conditions. FINDINGS: Between March 17 and April 21, 2016, 1510 individuals were vaccinated in four rings in Guinea, including 303 individuals aged between 6 years and 17 years and 307 front-line workers. It took 10 days to vaccinate the first participant following the confirmation of the first case of Ebola virus disease. No secondary cases of Ebola virus disease occurred among the vaccinees. Adverse events following vaccination were reported in 47 (17%) 6-17 year olds (all mild) and 412 (36%) adults (individuals older than 18 years; 98% were mild). Children reported fewer arthralgia events than adults (one [<1%] of 303 children vs 81 [7%] of 1207 adults). No severe vaccine-related adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The results show that a ring vaccination strategy can be rapidly and safely implemented at scale in response to Ebola virus disease outbreaks in rural settings. FUNDING: WHO, Gavi, and the World Food Programme.
