13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The necessity for intra-action reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic

      discussion

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          After the 2014–16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, WHO proposed a blueprint list of priority diseases for research and development, based on their epidemic potential or the absence of countermeasures. 1 Among this list is disease X, 1 representing the emergence of a disease previously unknown to humans that could result in a serious global health emergency. COVID-19, the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is disease X. As of Oct 6, 2020, there have been more than 35 million cases and 1 million deaths reported globally. 2 Many countries were not prepared to deal with a highly infectious respiratory pathogen and were caught off guard, including countries with recognised robust health systems. It is essential that countries evaluate their responses to COVID-19, including what could be improved in areas such as preparedness and response plans, and what worked well in activating those plans and dealing with the pandemic. Importantly, countries that seemed well prepared for such a threat need to identify the underlying causes of the challenges they faced. As COVID-19 continues to spread worldwide with no vaccines yet available, a protracted pandemic, characterised by interspersed local resurgences of clusters of cases, is probable in the months ahead. Of the four components of the International Health Regulations Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, the after-action review is the only one that systematically reviews functional capacities and capabilities following a real-life event. 3 WHO typically recommends that countries conduct an after-action review immediately or up to three months after the national declaration of the end of a significant public health event. 3 However, countries across the world continue to face different transmission scenarios of COVID-19. 4 Some countries appear to have consistently mitigated the spread and impact of COVID-19, while other countries have had persistent community transmission or are seeing a resurgence in cases following easing of community-wide public health and social measures. Given the protracted and unpredictable nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries might need to consider doing regular periodic reviews during the event. These reviews could help countries to continually reflect on their response and revise current national and subnational COVID-19 response strategies, as needed, to change the trajectory of the epidemic and minimise morbidity, mortality, and the direct and indirect effects on livelihoods. The world has learnt a great deal about how to suppress COVID-19 transmission and reduce mortality among severe cases over the past 9 months. While COVID-19 transmission is being brought under control, countries are starting to slowly open up and resume economic activity. The way in which interventions are adjusted as countries move forward must be driven by data and experience. WHO's Guidance for Conducting a Country COVID-19 Intra-Action Review, 5 modelled after the WHO after-action review, 3 is a country-led, facilitated discussion bringing together a small group of COVID-19 responders, including decision makers with knowledge of the public health response pillars under review, such as multisectoral coordination, surveillance, and diagnostic testing. The objective of the intra-action review is collective learning, in which responders can share experiences and identify current challenges and bottlenecks, as well as what actions are working. Through a root-cause analysis, 6 responders and decision makers can then address system-level root causes and propose practical steps for immediate remediation of gaps and the institutionalisation of best practices for sustained improvement of the ongoing response. Although intra-action reviews can be done online or face to face, the online format is recommended to avoid the risk of COVID-19 transmission among participants, particularly in countries with community transmission. The WHO guidance was developed with ten ready-to-use and customisable accompanying tools to ensure countries can easily plan and conduct an intra-action review. 5 These tools include a concept note template, a facilitator's manual, a generic presentation, a database with more than 300 COVID-19 trigger questions (open-ended questions for facilitators to select from to stimulate reflection and discussion), a final report template, and a success story template, among others. Countries are encouraged to share their review findings through a final report or success story to enable peer-to-peer learning and sharing of best practices or new capacities implemented in-country. The intra-action review guidance is aligned to the current WHO COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan and its nine public health response pillars. 7 In addition, a tenth pillar was also included in the guidance for other possible topics and cross-cutting issues, covering diverse topics relevant to the specific contexts of each country, such as caring for vulnerable populations in conflict zones and managing the spread of COVID-19 in camps for refugees or internally displaced people. 8 Depending on the specific objectives and needs of the intra-action review, countries are encouraged to adapt and expand the pillars and trigger questions as required. Many countries have had success in controlling transmission. However, some of these countries are starting to see a resurgence of cases again as they open up. Learning and sharing of the experiences and actions of one country can help others. This knowledge might help countries to more rapidly detect cases, prevent cases from becoming clusters, and clusters from turning into community transmission. One way to achieve this can be regularly doing intra-action reviews to ensure continual learning on best approaches to control this new virus and revise countries' response strategies, as needed. In the fourth meeting of the Emergency Committee under the International Health Regulations (2005), convened by the WHO Director-General on July 31, 2020, temporary recommendations were also issued to encourage countries to “share best practices, including from intra-action reviews, with WHO; apply lessons learned from countries that are successfully re-opening their societies and mitigating resurgence of COVID-19.” 9 In line with these recommendations, WHO urges countries to plan and conduct intra-action reviews, while engaging country leadership to ensure accountability and leadership support, in a whole-of-society approach, as some countries have already started doing. 10 The findings from intra-action reviews can inform decision making for immediate improvements of the response, as well as strategic and operational planning, such as updating national and subnational COVID-19 response plans. Through regular dialogue and learning via intra-action reviews among multisectoral responders and decision makers, we hope that countries can be increasingly adaptable in responding to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The COVID-19 response for vulnerable people in places affected by conflict and humanitarian crises

          Next year I will have worked full time in the UK's National Health Service (NHS) for 40 years. I seem to be a survivor not only from the political rollercoaster that various governments have enacted on the NHS, but also from volunteering my surgical skills in places affected by conflict and natural disasters for the past 25 years. The experiences of the patients I have served whose lives have been impacted by war, injustice, and inhumanity during this time have given me insight into what life is really about. Every person on this planet has a right to live and survive by whatever means possible. Having seen the adverse health impacts of conflict and humanitarian disaster on patients, I understand the mass movement of unprotected people from war to places of relative calm. Many of the estimated 70·8 million forcibly displaced people worldwide live in insanitary and inhospitable conditions, 1 sometimes up to six families living in one tent in a 3 m 2 area. 2 At a time when so many people are living under lockdown because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is important to highlight the dreadful conditions that displaced people endure, which I have personally witnessed in refugee camps throughout the world. Apart from difficult living conditions in these camps, many people share one latrine and washing facilities and hundreds queue for food every day. 3 People tolerate such conditions because they want to live. They have been forced to live this way by inhumane acts in conflict and authoritarianism. Many people in high-income countries might think that these humanitarian problems happen to other people far away and have little to do with them. At the start of this year with the first reports of a new virus in China, some people watched with casual nonchalance. Even when Joseph Wu and colleagues 4 reported in late January that COVID-19 was going to become a global pandemic requiring substantial preparation, this warning received insufficient attention. Too many of us were lulled into a false sense of security by shrugging politicians. Looking back now, it is hard to understand from a scientific and epidemiological standpoint that there seemed to be no one with sufficient leverage to wave that red flag very early on. Since then, I have seen the impact of this disease on patients in the NHS: patients with COVID-19 on routine wards with face masks that provide oxygen, others on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and those requiring ventilation in the intensive-care unit. I have watched my critical care colleagues work ventilators and change the settings to provide the best volume and pressure that COVID-19 patients require. I have been in awe of nurses in their full personal protective equipment (PPE) who stay with their patients for many hours at a time, doing all they possibly can to get their patient through. I have been part of the proning team that needs six to eight people to turn a patient carefully and safely onto their front to allow the previously compressed alveoli to open up. I have watched how this disease causes damage to other systems and how many patients require inotropic and renal support. There have been many patients who need extracorporeal membrane oxygenation when their lungs stop functioning. I have seen the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on the arterial and venous circulation, causing micro and macro thrombosis, which in some patients have necessitated amputation. Despite the dedicated efforts of well trained NHS staff working in good hospitals with appropriate equipment, mortality is high among patients on ventilators and CPAP. Data from the UK on April 24, 2020, show that of 2677 patients with COVID-19 who died in critical care, 1744 (65·4%) were on ventilators and of the 870 patients who required renal support in addition to ventilator support 679 (78·0%) died. 5 A case series in New York showed 282 (88·1%) of 320 COVID-19 patients on ventilators died. 6 In my opinion, alongside the efforts of health professionals, the main positive influences on reducing the number of deaths from COVID-19 have been handwashing, social distancing, and the lockdown to stop the transmission and contain SARS-CoV-2. © 2020 NurPhoto/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. But for the most vulnerable people on this planet, such strategies are not an option. People who live in conflict zones or in refugee camps cannot physically distance, they cannot self-isolate, they have inadequate facilities for washing, and are often without access to health care. Why don't they have access to health care? Conflict is one reason. In some parts of the world, such as northern Syria, where there has been conflict since 2011, hospitals have been targeted and destroyed. 7 Indeed, in this age of impunity, health care has been used as a weapon of war—you take out one doctor or hospital, you take out the lifeline for thousands of people who then leave and become refugees. And in other parts of the world where some refugee camps hold close to a million displaced people such as the Rohingya in Bangladesh, there is little time to ramp up constrained health services to respond to COVID-19. 8 In fragile settings, there is no massive infrastructure like the NHS. There are few ventilators—eg, South Sudan has four ventilators per 11 million people, Chad has three per 5 million people, and in northern Syria there is one ventilator for every 36 000 people. 9 Even if there were ventilators, there are insufficient numbers of trained staff to work them and there are no adjuvant treatments such as haemofiltration and cardiovascular support for the consequences of multiple organ failure that can occur with COVID-19. In such settings, there is no piped oxygen, electrical power cuts are common, and the health workforce capacity is unlikely to be enough to deal with even a small number of COVID-19 cases, never mind the potential of thousands of deaths from this disease. 10 There is now an urgent need to strengthen the COVID-19 response for the most vulnerable populations in places affected by conflict and humanitarian crises, where there is limited infrastructure for the response to COVID-19. But there is an opportunity at this present time to tackle the spread of the disease and contain it at its source. Political and humanitarian pressure must be put on warring parties in places like Syria and Yemen to end restrictions on access to health care to ensure humanitarian assistance. And I do not mean sending in vast amounts of PPE and ventilators; I mean ramping up the public health support with a goal to provide conditions that do not allow the virus to spread. Substantial financial support from the wealthiest nations is needed to overhaul the present conditions. Governments and humanitarian organisations need to do what WHO advised early on in this pandemic, 11 which is to test every suspected case of COVID-19, then isolate, quarantine, and trace contacts, and this must be done immediately. The security and safety of health-care workers, engineers, and water consultants must be paramount and all parties made aware of the Geneva Conventions. The COVID-19 pandemic requires a global response for the most vulnerable populations. Pressure must be put on every country where there are refugees and displaced people to allow testing and subsequent isolation, keeping families together if necessary. The time has come for world leaders to stop putting their countries first and to unite and fight this disease on a global footing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A peer assessment approach for learning from public health emergencies.

            As an alternative to standard quality improvement approaches and to commonly used after action report/improvement plans, we developed and tested a peer assessment approach for learning from singular public health emergencies. In this approach, health departments engage peers to analyze critical incidents, with the goal of aiding organizational learning within and across public health emergency preparedness systems. We systematically reviewed the literature in this area, formed a practitioner advisory panel to help translate these methods into a protocol, applied it retrospectively to case studies, and later field-tested the protocol in two locations. These field tests and the views of the health professionals who participated in them suggest that this peer-assessment approach is feasible and leads to a more in-depth analysis than standard methods. Engaging people involved in operating emergency health systems capitalizes on their professional expertise and provides an opportunity to identify transferable best practices.
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Journal
              Lancet Glob Health
              Lancet Glob Health
              The Lancet. Global Health
              The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
              2214-109X
              8 October 2020
              8 October 2020
              Affiliations
              [a ]WHO Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland
              [b ]WHO Regional Office for Europe (EURO), Copenhagen, Denmark
              [c ]WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (EMRO), Cairo, Egypt
              [d ]WHO South-East Asia Regional Office (SEARO), New Delhi, India
              [e ]WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific (WPRO), Manila, Philippines
              [f ]WHO Regional Office for Africa (AFRO), Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo
              Article
              S2214-109X(20)30414-9
              10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30414-9
              7544463
              33038949
              4dd4a48a-8b49-4907-bcab-0bb0f51c0884
              © 2020 World Health Organization

              Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

              History
              Categories
              Comment

              Comments

              Comment on this article