Riccardo F, Guzzetta G, Urdiales AM, Del Manso M, Andrianou XD, Bella A, Pezzotti P, Carbone S, De Vito T, Maraglino F, Demicheli V, Dario C, Coscioni E, Rezza G, Urbani A, Merler S, Brusaferro S. COVID-19 response: effectiveness of weekly rapid risk assessments, Italy.
Bull World Health Organ 2022;
100:161-167. [PMID:
35125541 PMCID:
PMC8795855 DOI:
10.2471/blt.21.286317]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2021] [Revised: 11/04/2021] [Accepted: 11/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Problem
After Italy’s first national restriction measures in 2020, a robust approach was needed to monitor the emerging epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at subnational level and provide data to inform the strengthening or easing of epidemic control measures.
Approach
We adapted the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control rapid risk assessment tool by including quantitative and qualitative indicators from existing national surveillance systems. We defined COVID-19 risk as a combination of the probability of uncontrolled transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and of an unsustainable impact of COVID-19 cases on hospital services, adjusted in relation to the health system’s resilience. The monitoring system was implemented with no additional cost in May 2020.
Local setting
The infectious diseases surveillance system in Italy uses consistent data collection methods across the country’s decentralized regions and autonomous provinces.
Relevant changes
Weekly risk assessments using this approach were sustainable in monitoring the epidemic at regional level from 4 May 2020 to 24 September 2021. The tool provided reliable assessments of when and where a rapid increase in demand for health-care services would occur if control or mitigation measures were not increased in the following 3 weeks.
Lessons learnt
Although the system worked well, framing the risk assessment tool in a legal decree hampered its flexibility, as indicators could not be changed without changing the law. The relative complexity of the tool, the impossibility of real-time validation and its use for the definition of restrictions posed communication challenges.
Collapse