Identifying Operational Challenges and Solutions During the COVID-19 Response Among US Public Health Laboratories.

CONTEXT: The ability to diagnose and screen for infection is an important component of the US COVID-19 response and is facilitated by public health laboratories (PHLs). Anecdotal media reports and limited case studies have described some of the challenges faced by PHLs during the pandemic, particularly initial challenges related to developing and deploying tests to PHLs, but there has not been a systematic evaluation of the experience of PHLs during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To document challenges and lessons learned experienced by local and state PHLs during the COVID-19 pandemic to support generation of best practices for current and future similar emergencies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From February to June 2021, researchers conducted 24 interviews with 68 leaders and staff representing 28 local and state PHLs across 27 states. Thematic analysis of interview content documented operational challenges and any identified solutions or preventive measures used or proposed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis identified the following themes regarding challenges faced among PHLs: strategic decision making and determining the mandate of the PHL; political interference by jurisdictional leadership; federal mismanagement of the emergency; regulatory challenges; managing partnerships with other laboratories; acquisition of appropriate supplies; insufficient information systems; acquiring and retaining workforce; and difficulty accessing sufficient funding. RESULTS: Within the identified themes, key informants provided further elaboration regarding how PHLs experienced, evaded, or solved these challenges. In addition, PHLs described how challenges evolved throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and made proposals regarding how challenges could be prevented or further addressed in the future by laboratories or other decision makers and stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: While fellow laboratories and political leadership may gain inspiration from creative solutions employed by PHLs, recognition of long-standing gaps related to funding, laboratory workforce, and consideration of laboratory needs in preparedness policies must be addressed for future large-scale outbreaks.

Assessing COVID-19 Pandemic Risk Perception and Response Preparedness in Veterinary and Animal Care Workers.

Veterinary and animal care workers perform critical functions in biosecurity and public health, yet little has been done to understand the unique needs and barriers these workers face when responding during a pandemic crisis. In this article, we evaluated the perceived risks and roles of veterinary and animal care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and explored barriers and facilitators in their readiness, ability, and willingness to respond during a pandemic. We deployed a survey targeting US veterinary medical personnel, animal shelter and control workers, zoo and wildlife workers, and other animal care workers. Data were collected on respondents' self-reported job and demographic factors, perceptions of risk and job efficacy, and readiness, ability, and willingness to respond during the pandemic. We found that leadership roles and older age had the strongest association with decreased perceived risk and improved job efficacy and confidence, and that increased reported contact level with others (both coworkers and the public) was associated with increased perceived risk. We determined that older age and serving in leadership positions were associated with improved readiness, willingness, and ability to respond. Veterinary and animal care workers' dedication to public health response, reflected in our findings, will be imperative if more zoonotic vectors of SARS-CoV-2 arise. Response preparedness in veterinary and animal care workers can be improved by targeting younger workers not in leadership roles through support programs that focus on improving job efficacy and confidence in safety protocols. These findings can be used to target intervention and training efforts to support the most vulnerable within this critical, yet often overlooked, workforce.

The value proposition of the Global Health Security Index.

Infectious disease outbreaks pose major threats to human health and security. Countries with robust capacities for preventing, detecting and responding to outbreaks can avert many of the social, political, economic and health system costs of such crises. The Global Health Security Index (GHS Index)-the first comprehensive assessment and benchmarking of health security and related capabilities across 195 countries-recently found that no country is sufficiently prepared for epidemics or pandemics. The GHS Index can help health security stakeholders identify areas of weakness, as well as opportunities to collaborate across sectors, collectively strengthen health systems and achieve shared public health goals. Some scholars have recently offered constructive critiques of the GHS Index's approach to scoring and ranking countries; its weighting of select indicators; its emphasis on transparency; its focus on biosecurity and biosafety capacities; and divergence between select country scores and corresponding COVID-19-associated caseloads, morbidity, and mortality. Here, we (1) describe the practical value of the GHS Index; (2) present potential use cases to help policymakers and practitioners maximise the utility of the tool; (3) discuss the importance of scoring and ranking; (4) describe the robust methodology underpinning country scores and ranks; (5) highlight the GHS Index's emphasis on transparency and (6) articulate caveats for users wishing to use GHS Index data in health security research, policymaking and practice.

A checklist to improve health system resilience to infectious disease outbreaks and natural hazards.

Recent infectious disease outbreaks, including the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic and Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, have demonstrated the critical importance of resilient health systems in safeguarding global health security. Importantly, the human, economic and political tolls of these crises are being amplified by health systems' inabilities to respond quickly and effectively. Improving resilience within health systems can build on pre-existing strengths to enhance the readiness of health system actors to respond to crises, while also maintaining core functions. Using data gathered from a scoping literature review, interviews with key informants and from stakeholders who attended a workshop held in Dhaka, Bangladesh, we developed a Health System Resilience Checklist ('the checklist'). The aim of the checklist is to measure the specific capacities, capabilities and processes that health systems need in order to ensure resilience in the face of both infectious disease outbreaks and natural hazards. The checklist is intended to be adapted and used in a broad set of countries as a component of ongoing processes to ensure that health actors, institutions and populations can mount an effective response to infectious disease outbreaks and natural hazards while also maintaining core healthcare services. The checklist is an important first step in improving health system resilience to these threats, but additional research and resources will be necessary to further refine and prioritise the checklist items and to pilot the checklist with the frontline health facilities that would be using it. This will help ensure its feasibility and durability for the long-term within the health systems strengthening and health security fields.

An analysis of International Health Regulations Emergency Committees and Public Health Emergency of International Concern Designations.

INTRODUCTION: Nine events have been assessed for potential declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). A PHEIC is defined as an extraordinary event that constitutes a public health risk to other states through international spread and requires a coordinated international response. The WHO Director-General convenes Emergency Committees (ECs) to provide their advice on whether an event constitutes a PHEIC. The EC rationales have been criticised for being non-transparent and contradictory to the International Health Regulations (IHR). This first comprehensive analysis of EC rationale provides recommendations to increase clarity of EC decisions which will strengthen the IHR and WHO's legitimacy in future outbreaks. METHODS: 66 EC statements were reviewed from nine public health outbreaks of influenza A, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, polio, Ebola virus disease, Zika, yellow fever and coronavirus disease-2019. Statements were analysed to determine which of the three IHR criteria were noted as contributing towards the EC's justification on whether to declare a PHEIC and what language was used to explain the decision. RESULTS: Interpretation of the criteria were often vague and applied inconsistently. ECs often failed to describe and justify which criteria had been satisfied. DISCUSSION: Guidelines must be developed for the standardised interpretation of IHR core criteria. The ECs must clearly identify and justify which criteria have contributed to their rationale for or against PHEIC declaration. CONCLUSION: Striving for more consistency and transparency in EC justifications would benefit future deliberations and provide more understanding and support for the process.