Improving global health security through implementation of the National Action Plan for Health Security in Sierra Leone, 2018-2021: lessons from the field.

BACKGROUND: All countries are required to implement International Health Regulations (IHR) through development and implementation of multi-year National Action Plans for Health Security (NAPHS). IHR implementation requires annual operational planning which involves several tools such as NAPHS, State Party Annual Report (SPAR), Joint External Evaluation (JEE) and WHO IHR Benchmarks tool. Sierra Leone has successfully improved IHR capacities across the years through successful annual operational planning using the above tools. We conducted a study to document and share the country's unique approach to implementation of NAPHS. METHODS: This was an observational study where the process of implementing and monitoring NAPHS in Sierra Leone was observed at the national level from 2018 to 2021. Data was obtained through review and analysis of NAPHS annual operational plans, quarterly review reports and annual IHR assessment reports. Available data was supplemented by information from key informants. Qualitative data was captured as notes and analysed for various themes while quantitative data was analyzed mainly for means and proportions. RESULTS: The overall national IHR Joint External Evaluation self-assessment score for human health improved from 44% in 2018 to 51% in 2019 and 57% in 2020. The score for the animal sector improved from 32% in 2018 to 43% in 2019 and 52% in 2020. A new JEE tool with new indicators was used in 2021 and the score for both human and animal sectors declined slightly to 51%. Key enablers of success included strong political commitment, whole-of-government approach, annual assessments using JEE tool, annual operational planning using WHO IHR Benchmarks tool and real time online monitoring of progress. Key challenges included disruption created by COVID-19 response, poor health infrastructure, low funding and inadequate health workforce. CONCLUSION: IHR annual operational planning and implementation using evidence-based data and tools can facilitate strengthening of IHR capacity and should be encouraged.

The role of health systems for health security: a scoping review revealing the need for improved conceptual and practical linkages.

BACKGROUND: Practical links between health systems and health security are historically prevalent, but the conceptual links between these fields remain under explored, with little on health system strengthening. The need to address this gap gains relevance in light of the COVID-19 pandemic as it demonstrated a crucial relationship between health system capacities and effective health security response. Acknowledging the importance of developing stronger and more resilient health systems globally for health emergency preparedness, the WHO developed a Health Systems for Health Security framework that aims to promote a common understanding of what health systems for health security entails whilst identifying key capacities required. METHODS/ RESULTS: To further explore and analyse the conceptual and practical links between health systems and health security within the peer reviewed literature, a rapid scoping review was carried out to provide an overview of the type, extent and quantity of research available. Studies were included if they had been peer-reviewed and were published in English (seven databases 2000 to 2020). 343 articles were identified, of those 204 discussed health systems and health security (high and medium relevance), 101 discussed just health systems and 47 discussed only health security (low relevance). Within the high and medium relevance articles, several concepts emerged, including the prioritization of health security over health systems, the tendency to treat health security as exceptionalism focusing on acute health emergencies, and a conceptualisation of security as 'state security' not 'human security' or population health. CONCLUSION: Examples of literature exploring links between health systems and health security are provided. We also present recommendations for further research, offering several investments and/or programmes that could reliably lead to maximal gains from both a health system and a health security perspective, and why these should be explored further. This paper could help researchers and funders when deciding upon the scope, nature and design of future research in this area. Additionally, the paper legitimises the necessity of the Health Systems for Health Security framework, with the findings of this paper providing useful insights and evidentiary examples for effective implementation of the framework.

Health security capacities in the context of COVID-19 outbreak: an analysis of International Health Regulations annual report data from 182 countries.

BACKGROUND: Public health measures to prevent, detect, and respond to events are essential to control public health risks, including infectious disease outbreaks, as highlighted in the International Health Regulations (IHR). In light of the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we aimed to review existing health security capacities against public health risks and events. METHODS: We used 18 indicators from the IHR State Party Annual Reporting (SPAR) tool and associated data from national SPAR reports to develop five indices: (1) prevent, (2) detect, (3) respond, (4) enabling function, and (5) operational readiness. We used SPAR 2018 data for all of the indicators and categorised countries into five levels across the indices, in which level 1 indicated the lowest level of national capacity and level 5 the highest. We also analysed data at the regional level (using the six geographical WHO regions). FINDINGS: Of 182 countries, 52 (28%) had prevent capacities at levels 1 or 2, and 60 (33%) had response capacities at levels 1 or 2. 81 (45%) countries had prevent capacities and 78 (43%) had response capacities at levels 4 or 5, indicating that these countries were operationally ready. 138 (76%) countries scored more highly in the detect index than in the other indices. 44 (24%) countries did not have an effective enabling function for public health risks and events, including infectious disease outbreaks (7 [4%] at level 1 and 37 [20%] at level 2). 102 (56%) countries had level 4 or level 5 enabling function capacities in place. 32 (18%) countries had low readiness (2 [1%] at level 1 and 30 [17%] at level 2), and 104 (57%) countries were operationally ready to prevent, detect, and control an outbreak of a novel infectious disease (66 [36%] at level 4 and 38 [21%] at level 5). INTERPRETATION: Countries vary widely in terms of their capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to outbreaks. Half of all countries analysed have strong operational readiness capacities in place, which suggests that an effective response to potential health emergencies could be enabled, including to COVID-19. Findings from local risk assessments are needed to fully understand national readiness capacities in relation to COVID-19. Capacity building and collaboration between countries are needed to strengthen global readiness for outbreak control. FUNDING: None.

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.

Getting the most from after action reviews to improve global health security.

BACKGROUND: After Action Reviews (AARs) provide a means to observe how well preparedness systems perform in real world conditions and can help to identify - and address - gaps in national and global public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) systems. WHO has recently published guidance for voluntary AARs. This analysis builds on this guidance by reviewing evidence on the effectiveness of AARs as tools for system improvement and by summarizing some key lessons about ensuring that AARs result in meaningful learning from experience. RESULTS: Empirical evidence from a variety of fields suggests that AARs hold considerable promise as tools of system improvement for PHEP. Our review of the literature and practical experience demonstrates that AARs are most likely to result in meaningful learning if they focus on incidents that are selected for their learning value, involve an appropriately broad range of perspectives, are conducted with appropriate time for reflection, employ systems frameworks and rigorous tools such as facilitated lookbacks and root cause analysis, and strike a balance between attention to incident specifics vs. generalizable capacities and capabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Employing these practices requires a PHEP system that facilitates the preparation of insightful AARs, and more generally rewards learning. The barriers to AARs fall into two categories: concerns about the cultural sensitivity and context, liability, the political response, and national security; and constraints on staff time and the lack of experience and the requisite analytical skills. Ensuring that AARs fulfill their promise as tools of system improvement will require ongoing investment and a change in mindset. The first step should be to clarify that the goal of AARs is organizational learning, not placing blame or punishing poor performance. Based on experience in other fields, the buy-in of agency and political leadership is critical in this regard. National public health systems also need support in the form of toolkits, guides, and training, as well as research on AAR methods. An AAR registry could support organizational improvement through careful post-event analysis of systems' own events, facilitate identification and sharing of best practices across jurisdictions, and enable cross-case analyses.

Analysis of Joint External Evaluations in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region.

BACKGROUND: Joint External Evaluation (JEE) was developed as a new model of peer-to-peer expert external evaluations of IHR capacities using standardized approaches. AIMS: This study aimed to consolidate findings of these assessments in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and assess their significance. METHODS: Analysis of the data were conducted for 14 countries completing JEE in the Region. Mean JEE score for each of the 19 technical areas and for the overall technical areas were calculated. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were done to assess correlations with key health, socio-economic and health system indicators. RESULTS: Mean JEE scores varied substantially across technical areas. The cumulative mean JEE (mean of indicator scores related to that technical area) was 3 (range: 1-4). Antimicrobial resistance, Biosecurity and Biosafety indicators obtained the lowest scores. Medical countermeasures, personnel deployment and linking public health with security capacities had the highest cumulative mean score of 4 (range: 2-5). JEE scores correlated with most of the key indicators examined. Countries with better health financing system, health service coverage and health status generally had higher JEE scores. Adolescent fertility rate, neonatal mortality ratio and net primary school enrollment ratio were primary factors within a country's overall JEE score. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated multisectoral approach, including well-planned cross-cutting health financing system and coverage, are critical to address the key gaps identified by JEEs in order to ensure regional and global health security.

Joint External Evaluation-Development and Scale-Up of Global Multisectoral Health Capacity Evaluation Process.

The Joint External Evaluation (JEE), a consolidation of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR 2005) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and the Global Health Security Agenda country assessment tool, is an objective, voluntary, independent peer-to-peer multisectoral assessment of a country's health security preparedness and response capacity across 19 IHR technical areas. WHO approved the standardized JEE tool in February 2016. The JEE process is wholly transparent; countries request a JEE and are encouraged to make its findings public. Donors (e.g., member states, public and private partners, and other public health institutions) can support countries in addressing identified JEE gaps, and implementing country-led national action plans for health security. Through July 2017, 52 JEEs were completed, and 25 more countries were scheduled across WHO's 6 regions. JEEs facilitate progress toward IHR 2005 implementation, thereby building trust and mutual accountability among countries to detect and respond to public health threats.

Mapping the international health regulations monitoring and evaluation framework: an expert consultation, triangulation crosswalk and quantitative analysis.

The International Health Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (IHRMEF) includes four components regularly conducted by States Parties to measure the current status of International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005 core capacities and provide recommendations for strengthening these capacities. However, the four components are conducted independently of one another and have no systematic referral to each other before, during or after each process, despite being largely conducted by the same team, country and support organisations. This analysis sets out to identify ways in which IHRMEF components could work more synergistically to effectively measure the status of IHR core capacities, taking into account the country's priority risks. We developed a methodology to allow these independent components to communicate with each other, including expert consultation, a qualitative crosswalk analysis and a country-level quantitative analysis. The demonstrated results act as a proof of concept and illustrate a methodology to provide benefits across all four components before, during and after implementation.

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.

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.

Assessment of core capacities for the International Health Regulations (IHR[2005])--Uganda, 2009.

BACKGROUND: Uganda is currently implementing the International Health Regulations (IHR[2005]) within the context of Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR). The IHR(2005) require countries to assess the ability of their national structures, capacities, and resources to meet the minimum requirements for surveillance and response. This report describes the results of the assessment undertaken in Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional assessment using the protocol developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The data collection tools were adapted locally and administered to a convenience sample of HR(2005) stakeholders, and frequency analyses were performed. RESULTS: Ugandan national laws relevant to the IHR(2005) existed, but they did not adequately support the full implementation of the IHR(2005). Correspondingly, there was a designated IHR National Focal Point (NFP), but surveillance activities and operational communications were limited to the health sector. All the districts (13/13) had designated disease surveillance offices, most had IDSR technical guidelines (92%, or 12/13), and all (13/13) had case definitions for infectious and zoonotic diseases surveillance. Surveillance guidelines were available at 57% (35/61) of the health facilities, while case definitions were available at 66% (40/61) of the health facilities. The priority diseases list, surveillance guidelines, case definitions and reporting tools were based on the IDSR strategy and hence lacked information on the IHR(2005). The rapid response teams at national and district levels lacked food safety, chemical and radio-nuclear experts. Similarly, there were no guidelines on the outbreak response to food, chemical and radio-nuclear hazards. Comprehensive preparedness plans incorporating IHR(2005) were lacking at national and district levels. A national laboratory policy existed and the strategic plan was being drafted. However, there were critical gaps hampering the efficient functioning of the national laboratory network. Finally, the points of entry for IHR(2005) implementation had not been designated. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment highlighted critical gaps to guide the IHR(2005) planning process. The IHR(2005) action plan should therefore be developed to foster national and international public health security.

Joint external evaluation of the International Health Regulation (2005) capacities: current status and lessons learnt in the WHO African region.

The International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) are an essential vehicle for addressing global health security. Here, we report the IHR capacities in the WHO African from independent joint external evaluation (JEE). The JEE is a voluntary component of the IHR monitoring and evaluation framework. It evaluates IHR capacities in 19 technical areas in four broad themes: 'Prevent' (7 technical areas, 15 indicators); 'Detect' (4 technical areas, 13 indicators); 'Respond' (5 technical areas, 14 indicators), points of entry (PoE) and other IHR hazards (chemical and radiation) (3 technical areas, 6 indicators). The IHR capacity scores are graded from level 1 (no capacity) to level 5 (sustainable capacity). From February 2016 to March 2019, 40 of 47 WHO African region countries (81% coverage) evaluated their IHR capacities using the JEE tool. No country had the required IHR capacities. Under the theme 'Prevent', no country scored level 5 for 12 of 15 indicators. Over 80% of them scored level 1 or 2 for most indicators. For 'Detect', none scored level 5 for 12 of 13 indicators. However, many scored level 3 or 4 for several indicators. For 'Respond', none scored level 5 for 13 of 14 indicators, and less than 10% had a national multihazard public health emergency preparedness and response plan. For PoE and other IHR hazards, most countries scored level 1 or 2 and none scored level 5. Countries in the WHO African region are commended for embracing the JEE to assess their IHR capacities. However, major gaps have been identified. Urgent collective action is needed now to protect the WHO African region from health security threats.

Institutionalizing One Health: From Assessment to Action.

A One Health approach is critical to strengthening health security at country, regional, and global levels. However, operationally its uptake remains limited. Recent momentum in assessing capacity to effectively prevent, detect, and respond to disease threats has resulted in identification of gaps that require dedicated action. This article highlights relevant tools, standards, and guidance to assist countries and institutions in meeting the collective vision articulated at the 2018 Prince Mahidol Award Conference on "Making the World Safe from the Threats of Emerging Infectious Diseases." Taking stock of assessment findings, resources, priorities, and implementation initiatives across human and animal health, environment and disaster risk reduction sectors can help expand participation in global health security, target risk drivers, and form synergies for collective action and shared gains for both emerging and endemic disease challenges. In addition to health security gains, a multisectoral, One Health approach can drive benefits for wider health sector and global development goals.

Developing a multisectoral National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) to implement the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) in Tanzania.

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa precipitated a renewed momentum to ensure global health security through the expedited and full implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) in all WHO member states. The updated IHR (2005) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework was shared with Member States in 2015 with one mandatory component, that is, States Parties annual reporting to the World Health Assembly (WHA) on compliance and three voluntary components: Joint External Evaluation (JEE), After Action Reviews and Simulation Exercises. In February 2016, Tanzania, was the first country globally to volunteer to do a JEE and the first to use the recommendations for priority actions from the JEE to develop a National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) by February 2017. The JEE demonstrated that within the majority of the 47 indicators within the 19 technical areas, Tanzania had either 'limited capacity' or 'developed capacity'. None had 'sustainable capacity'. With JEE recommendations for priority actions, recommendations from other relevant assessments and complementary objectives, Tanzania developed the NAPHS through a nationwide consultative and participatory process. The 5-year cost estimate came out to approximately US$86.6 million (22 million for prevent, 50 million for detect, 4.8 million for respond and 9.2 million for other IHR hazards and points of entry). However, with the inclusion of vaccines for zoonotic diseases in animals increases the cost sevenfold. The importance of strong country ownership and committed leadership were identified as instrumental for the development of operationally focused NAPHS that are aligned with broader national plans across multiple sectors. Key lessons learnt by Tanzania can help guide and encourage other countries to translate their JEE priority actions into a realistic costed NAPHS for funding and implementation for IHR (2005).

Planning an integrated disease surveillance and response system: a matrix of skills and activities.

BACKGROUND: The threat of a global influenza pandemic and the adoption of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations (2005) highlight the value of well-coordinated, functional disease surveillance systems. The resulting demand for timely information challenges public health leaders to design, develop and implement efficient, flexible and comprehensive systems that integrate staff, resources, and information systems to conduct infectious disease surveillance and response. To understand what resources an integrated disease surveillance and response system would require, we analyzed surveillance requirements for 19 priority infectious diseases targeted for an integrated disease surveillance and response strategy in the WHO African region. METHODS: We conducted a systematic task analysis to identify and standardize surveillance objectives, surveillance case definitions, action thresholds, and recommendations for 19 priority infectious diseases. We grouped the findings according to surveillance and response functions and related them to community, health facility, district, national and international levels. RESULTS: The outcome of our analysis is a matrix of generic skills and activities essential for an integrated system. We documented how planners used the matrix to assist in finding gaps in current systems, prioritizing plans of action, clarifying indicators for monitoring progress, and developing instructional goals for applied epidemiology and in-service training programs. CONCLUSION: The matrix for Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) in the African region made clear the linkage between public health surveillance functions and participation across all levels of national health systems. The matrix framework is adaptable to requirements for new programs and strategies. This framework makes explicit the essential tasks and activities that are required for strengthening or expanding existing surveillance systems that will be able to adapt to current and emerging public health threats.