Tools for Assessment of Country Preparedness for Public Health Emergencies: A Critical Review

Evaluation of prehospital preparedness for major incidents on a national level, with focus on mass casualty incidents

PURPOSE

To investigate prehospital preparedness work for Mass Casualty Incidents (MCI) and Major Incidents (MI) in Norway.

METHOD

A national cross-sectional descriptive study of Norway's prehospital MI preparedness through a web-based survey. A representative selection of Rescue and Emergency Services were included, excluding Non-Governmental Organisations and military. The survey consisted of 59 questions focused on organisation, planning, education/training, exercises and evaluation.

RESULTS

Totally, 151/157 (96%) respondents answered the survey. The results showed variance regarding contingency planning for MCI/MI, revisions of the plans, use of national triage guidelines, knowledge requirements, as well as haemostatic and tactical first aid skills training. Participation in interdisciplinary on-going life-threatening violence (PLIVO) exercises was high among Ambulance, Police and Fire/Rescue Emergency Services. Simulations of terrorist attacks or disasters with multiple injured the last five years were reported by 21/151 (14%) on a regional level and 74/151 (48%) on a local level. Evaluation routines after MCI/MI events were reported by half of the respondents (75/151) and 70/149 (47%) described a dedicated function to perform such evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The study indicates considerable variance and gaps among Prehospital Rescue and Emergency Services in Norway regarding MCI/MI preparedness work, calling for national benchmarks, minimum requirements, follow-up routines of the organisations and future reassessments. Implementation of mandatory PLIVO exercises seems to have contributed to interdisciplinary exercises between Fire/Rescue, Police and Ambulance Emergency Service. Repeated standardised surveys can be a useful tool to assess and follow-up the MI preparedness work among Prehospital Rescue and Emergency Services at a national, regional and local level.

Preparing for the next outbreak: A review of indices measuring outbreak preparedness, vulnerability, and resilience

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for relevant metrics describing the resources and community attributes that affect the impact of communicable disease outbreaks. Such tools can help inform policy, assess change, and identify gaps to potentially reduce the negative outcomes of future outbreaks. The present review was designed to identify available indices to assess communicable disease outbreak preparedness, vulnerability, or resilience, including articles describing an index or scale developed to address disasters or emergencies which could be applied to addressing a future outbreak. This review assesses the landscape of indices available, with a particular focus on tools assessing local-level attributes. This systematic review yielded 59 unique indices applicable to assessing communicable disease outbreaks through the lens of preparedness, vulnerability, or resilience. However, despite the large number of tools identified, only 3 of these indices assessed factors at the local level and were generalizable to different types of outbreaks. Given the influence of local resources and community attributes on a wide range of communicable disease outcomes, there is a need for local-level tools that can be applied broadly to various types of outbreaks. Such tools should assess both current and long-term changes in outbreak preparedness with the intent to identify gaps, inform local-level decision makers, public policy, and future response to current and novel outbreaks.

Looking Ahead in the Rearview Mirror: During Action Review and Tabletop (DART) to Strengthen Health Emergency Readiness and Resiliency

During health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, systematic evaluation of capabilities, and multisector coordination are challenging while operating in triage mode. During Action Review and Tabletop (DART) identifies recommendations for strengthening readiness and resiliency by creating a single methodology integrating retrospective analysis of the response to date with a prospective analysis of future scenarios. DART utilizes a role-based questionnaire and participant-led discussion for retrospective response review and identification of future scenarios of concern. Tabletop exercises exploring those future scenarios are conducted in a multi-role format to assess readiness and resiliency. Participants evaluate findings to determine recommended actions to improve response capabilities. 3 COVID-19 focused DARTs demonstrated the ability of this participant-led approach to systematically assess, not only readiness for today, but also resiliency to future complications. While demonstrating its usefulness during COVID-19, DART's flexible and modular design promises to be an effective for any ongoing health emergency.

Prehospital Preparedness for Major Incidents in Sweden: A National Survey with Focus on Mass-Casualty Incidents

INTRODUCTION

Major incidents (MIs) put great demands on the medical response to effectively organize and redistribute resources and personnel, in prehospital care as well as hospital care, and coordinating functions. Studies indicate that regular training and well-established contingency plans are vital for the medical response to MIs. Previous assessments have concluded that Swedish disaster preparedness requires improved organization and coordination. There is currently no method to easily follow-up the preparedness work of the prehospital medical response organizations for MIs in Sweden.

PROBLEM

The aim of the study was to assess qualifications and training requirements for central individual roles, to examine frequency and focus of training and simulation, as well as to examine current regional routines for MIs in Sweden. The aim was also to identify, to evaluate, and to investigate areas for improvement in prehospital health care preparedness for MIs in Sweden.

METHODS

Descriptive comparative study of Sweden's prehospital organization, planning, education, and training for MIs through a web-based survey sent to all 21 regions in Sweden. The survey included 64 questions and was based on national legislation and guidelines for preparedness and previous investigations of real MIs.

RESULTS

A total of 37 answers to the survey were collected representing 17/21 regions (80.9%) from which Regional Management Individuals (RMIs) were selected from 15 regions and used as representative primary responses. The initial routines regarding alarm and establishment of management functions were mainly in-line with national guidelines. Staffing and qualification requirements for certain leadership roles differed substantially between regions. The requirements for the health care staff's knowledge of the contingency plan were generally low and routines for follow-up were often lacking. The frequency of exercises in certain areas were deficient.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study showed several potential areas for improvement within the prehospital emergency medical preparedness for MIs in Sweden. Methodology and adherence of national guidelines for medical response preparedness differ between regions in Sweden, which motivates recurring assessments. It is possible to use a well-prepared questionnaire study to follow-up and to examine parts of the regional prehospital preparedness work and organization for MIs.

Assessing health governance across countries: a scoping review protocol on indices and assessment tools applied globally

INTRODUCTION

Most global health indices or assessment tools focus on health outcomes rather than governance, and they have been developed primarily from the perspective of high-income countries. To benchmark global health governance for equity and solidarity, it becomes necessary to reflect on the current state of indices or assessment tools evaluating health governance across countries. This scoping review aims to review the existing multicountry indices and assessment tools applied globally with measurable indicators assessing health governance; summarise their differences and commonalities; identify the lessons learnt through analysis of their advantages and gaps; and evaluate the feasibility and necessity to establish a new index or consensus framework for assessing global health governance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review protocol follows Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses methodology for scoping reviews. Key information sources will be bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase and Web of Science Core Collection), grey literature and citation tracking. The time frame will be from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2021. Only indices or assessment tools that are globally applicable and provide measurable indicators of health governance will be eligible. A qualitative content analysis will follow the proposed data extraction form to explicate and compare each eligible index or assessment tool. An analysis based on a proposed preliminary evaluation framework will identify the advantages and gaps and summarise the lessons learnt. This scoping review will also discuss the feasibility and necessity of developing a new global health governance index or consensus framework to inform future research and practices.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This scoping review does not require ethics approval. Dissemination will include a peer-review article, policy briefs and conference presentations. This protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/y93mj).

Towards defining core principles of public health emergency preparedness: scoping review and Delphi consultation among European Union country experts

Background

European Member States, the European Commission and its agencies work together to enhance preparedness and response for serious cross-border threats to health such as Ebola. Yet, common understanding of public health emergency preparedness across EU/EEA countries is challenging, because preparedness is a relatively new field of activity and is inherently fraught with uncertainty. A set of practical, widely accepted and easy to use recommendations for generic preparedness that bundles the activities described in separate guidance documents supports countries in preparing for any possible health threat. The aim of this consensus procedure was to identify and seek consensus from national-level preparedness experts from EU/EEA countries on key recommendations of public health emergency preparedness.

Methods

To identify key recommendations and to prioritize the recommendations we started with a literature consensus procedure, followed by a modified Delphi method for consultation of public health emergency preparedness leaders of EU/EEA countries. This consisted of six consecutive steps: a questionnaire to achieve consensus on a core set of recommendations, a face-to-face consultation, preselection of prioritized recommendations, a questionnaire to achieve consensus on the prioritized set and a face-to-face consensus meeting to further prioritize recommendations.

Results

As a result, EU/EEA experts selected 149 recommendations as core preparedness principles and prioritized 42. The recommendations were grouped in the seven domains: governance (57), capacity building and maintenance (11), surveillance (19), risk-assessment (16), risk- and crisis management (35), post-event evaluation (6) and implementation of lessons learned (5).

Conclusions

This prioritised set of consensus principles can provide a foundation for countries aiming to evaluate and improve their preparedness for public health emergencies. The recommendations are practical, support generic preparedness planning, and can be used by all countries irrespective of their current level of preparedness.