Lessons learnt from coordinating emergency health response during humanitarian crises: a case study of implementation of the health cluster in northern Uganda
In: Conflict and health, Band 9, Heft 1
ISSN: 1752-1505
7 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Conflict and health, Band 9, Heft 1
ISSN: 1752-1505
In: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/16/691
Abstract Background In November 2012, the 62nd session of the Regional Committee for Africa adopted a comprehensive 10-year regional strategy for health disaster risk management (DRM). This was intended to operationalize the World Health Organization's core commitments to health DRM and the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 in the health sectors of the 47 African member states. This study reported the formative evaluation of the strategy, including evaluation of the progress in achieving nine targets (expected to be achieved incrementally by 2014, 2017, and 2022). We proposed recommendations for accelerating the strategy's implementation within the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Methods This study used a mixed methods design. A cross-sectional quantitative survey was conducted along with a review of available reports and information on the implementation of the strategy. A review meeting to discuss and finalize the study findings was also conducted. Results In total, 58 % of the countries assessed had established DRM coordination units within their Ministry of Health (MOH). Most had dedicated MOH DRM staff (88 %) and national-level DRM committees (71 %). Only 14 (58 %) of the countries had health DRM subcommittees using a multi-sectoral disaster risk reduction platform. Less than 40 % had conducted surveys such as disaster risk analysis, hospital safety index, and mapping of health resources availability. Key challenges in implementing the strategy were inadequate political will and commitment resulting in poor funding for health DRM, weak health systems, and a dearth of scientific evidence on mainstreaming DRM and disaster risk reduction in longer-term health system development programs. Conclusions Implementation of the strategy was behind anticipated targets despite some positive outcomes, such as an increase in the number of countries with health DRM incorporated in their national health legislation, MOH DRM units, and functional health sub-committees within national DRM committees. Health system-based, multi-sectoral, and people-centred approaches are proposed to accelerate implementation of the strategy in the post-Hyogo Framework of Action era.
BASE
BACKGROUND : In November 2012, the 62nd session of the Regional Committee for Africa adopted a comprehensive 10-year regional strategy for health disaster risk management (DRM). This was intended to operationalize the World Health Organization's core commitments to health DRM and the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 in the health sectors of the 47 African member states. This study reported the formative evaluation of the strategy, including evaluation of the progress in achieving nine targets (expected to be achieved incrementally by 2014, 2017, and 2022). We proposed recommendations for accelerating the strategy's implementation within the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. METHODS : This study used a mixed methods design. A cross-sectional quantitative survey was conducted along with a review of available reports and information on the implementation of the strategy. A review meeting to discuss and finalize the study findings was also conducted. RESULTS : In total, 58 % of the countries assessed had established DRM coordination units within their Ministry of Health (MOH). Most had dedicated MOH DRM staff (88 %) and national-level DRM committees (71 %). Only 14 (58 %) of the countries had health DRM subcommittees using a multi-sectoral disaster risk reduction platform. Less than 40 % had conducted surveys such as disaster risk analysis, hospital safety index, and mapping of health resources availability. Key challenges in implementing the strategy were inadequate political will and commitment resulting in poor funding for health DRM, weak health systems, and a dearth of scientific evidence on mainstreaming DRM and disaster risk reduction in longer-term health system development programs. CONCLUSIONS : Implementation of the strategy was behind anticipated targets despite some positive outcomes, such as an increase in the number of countries with health DRM incorporated in their national health legislation, MOH DRM units, and functional health sub-committees within national DRM committees. Health ...
BASE
AIM: This study describes the coordination mechanisms that have been used for management of the COVID 19 pandemic in the WHO AFRO region; relate the patterns of the disease (length of time between onset of coordination and first case; length of the wave of the disease and peak attack rate) to coordination mechanisms established at the national level, and document best practices and lessons learned. METHOD: We did a retrospective policy tracing of the COVID-19 coordination mechanisms from March 2020 (when first cases of COVID-19 in the AFRO region were reported) to the end of the third wave in September 2021. Data sources were from document and Literature review of COVID-19 response strategies, plans, regulations, press releases, government websites, grey and peer-reviewed literature. The data was extracted to Excel file database and coded then analysed using Stata (version 15). Analysis was done through descriptive statistical analysis (using measures of central tendencies (mean, SD, and median) and measures of central dispersion (range)), multiple linear regression, and thematic analysis of qualitative data. RESULTS: There are three distinct layered coordination mechanisms (strategic, operational, and tactical) that were either implemented singularly or in tandem with another coordination mechanism. 87.23% (n = 41) of the countries initiated strategic coordination, and 59.57% (n = 28) initiated some form of operational coordination. Some of countries (n = 26,55.32%) provided operational coordination using functional Public Health Emergency Operation Centres (PHEOCs) which were activated for the response. 31.91% (n = 15) of the countries initiated some form of tactical coordination which involved the decentralisation of the operations at the local/grassroot level/district/ county levels. Decentralisation strategies played a key role in coordination, as was the innovative strategies by the countries; some coordination mechanisms built on already existing coordination systems and the heads of states were effective ...
BASE
Globally, effective emergency response to disease outbreaks is usually affected by weak coordination. However, coordination using an incident management system (IMS) in line with a One Health approach involving human, environment, and animal health with collaborations between government and non-governmental agencies result in improved response outcome for zoonotic diseases such as Lassa fever (LF). We provide an overview of the 2019 LF outbreak response in Nigeria using the IMS and One Health approach. The response was coordinated via ten Emergency Operation Centre (EOC) response pillars. Cardinal response activities included activation of EOC, development of an incident action plan, deployment of One Health rapid response teams to support affected states, mid-outbreak review and after-action review meetings. Between 1st January and 29th December 2019, of the 5057 people tested for LF, 833 were confirmed positive from 23 States, across 86 Local Government Areas. Of the 833 confirmed cases, 650 (78%) were from hotspot States of Edo (36%), Ondo (26%) and Ebonyi (16%). Those in the age-group 21-40 years (47%) were mostly affected, with a male to female ratio of 1:1. Twenty healthcare workers were affected. Two LF naïve states Kebbi and Zamfara, reported confirmed cases for the first time during this period. The outbreak peaked earlier in the year compared to previous years, and the emergency phase of the outbreak was declared over by epidemiological week 17 based on low national threshold composite indicators over a period of six consecutive weeks. Multisectoral and multidisciplinary strategic One Health EOC coordination at all levels facilitated the swift containment of Nigeria's large LF outbreak in 2019. It is therefore imperative to embrace One Health approach embedded within the EOC to holistically address the increasing LF incidence in Nigeria.
BASE
Globally, effective emergency response to disease outbreaks is usually affected by weak coordination. However, coordination using an incident management system (IMS) in line with a One Health approach involving human, environment, and animal health with collaborations between government and non-governmental agencies result in improved response outcome for zoonotic diseases such as Lassa fever (LF). We provide an overview of the 2019 LF outbreak response in Nigeria using the IMS and One Health approach. The response was coordinated via ten Emergency Operation Centre (EOC) response pillars. Cardinal response activities included activation of EOC, development of an incident action plan, deployment of One Health rapid response teams to support affected states, mid-outbreak review and after-action review meetings. Between 1st January and 29th December 2019, of the 5057 people tested for LF, 833 were confirmed positive from 23 States, across 86 Local Government Areas. Of the 833 confirmed cases, 650 (78%) were from hotspot States of Edo (36%), Ondo (26%) and Ebonyi (16%). Those in the age-group 21–40 years (47%) were mostly affected, with a male to female ratio of 1:1. Twenty healthcare workers were affected. Two LF naïve states Kebbi and Zamfara, reported confirmed cases for the first time during this period. The outbreak peaked earlier in the year compared to previous years, and the emergency phase of the outbreak was declared over by epidemiological week 17 based on low national threshold composite indicators over a period of six consecutive weeks. Multisectoral and multidisciplinary strategic One Health EOC coordination at all levels facilitated the swift containment of Nigeria's large LF outbreak in 2019. It is therefore imperative to embrace One Health approach embedded within the EOC to holistically address the increasing LF incidence in Nigeria.
BASE
Globally, effective emergency response to disease outbreaks is usually affected by weak coordination. However, coordination using an incident management system (IMS) in line with a One Health approach involving human, environment, and animal health with collaborations between government and non-governmental agencies result in improved response outcome for zoonotic diseases such as Lassa fever (LF). We provide an overview of the 2019 LF outbreak response in Nigeria using the IMS and One Health approach. The response was coordinated via ten Emergency Operation Centre (EOC) response pillars. Cardinal response activities included activation of EOC, development of an incident action plan, deployment of One Health rapid response teams to support affected states, mid-outbreak review and after-action review meetings. Between 1st January and 29th December 2019, of the 5057 people tested for LF, 833 were confirmed positive from 23 States, across 86 Local Government Areas. Of the 833 confirmed cases, 650 (78%) were from hotspot States of Edo (36%), Ondo (26%) and Ebonyi (16%). Those in the age-group 21-40 years (47%) were mostly affected, with a male to female ratio of 1:1. Twenty healthcare workers were affected. Two LF naïve states Kebbi and Zamfara, reported confirmed cases for the first time during this period. The outbreak peaked earlier in the year compared to previous years, and the emergency phase of the outbreak was declared over by epidemiological week 17 based on low national threshold composite indicators over a period of six consecutive weeks. Multisectoral and multidisciplinary strategic One Health EOC coordination at all levels facilitated the swift containment of Nigeria's large LF outbreak in 2019. It is therefore imperative to embrace One Health approach embedded within the EOC to holistically address the increasing LF incidence in Nigeria. ; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100346
BASE