Building operational readiness for responding to emergencies in the WHO South-East Asia Region.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has an essential role to play in supporting Member States to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies with public health consequences. Operational readiness for known and unknown hazards and emergencies requires a risk-informed and structured approach to building capacities within organizations such as WHO offices and national ministries of health. Under the flagship priority programme on emergency risk management of the WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia, a readiness training programme consisting of four modules was implemented during 2017-2018, involving staff from WHO country offices as well as from the regional office. The experience of and lessons learnt from designing, developing and delivering this phased training programme have fed into improvements in the curriculum and training methodology. The training programme has also facilitated the development of business continuity plans and contingency plans in some of the 11 Member States of the region and has increased the readiness of WHO staff for swift deployment in recent emergencies. It is recommended that the strengthening of operational readiness for responding to emergencies in the region be sustained and accelerated through the development of a regional training consortium that can scale the training programme up at national level, taking into account country contexts, national health systems and the needs of populations. The resilience of the populations and health systems in the region will be increased if disaster risk reduction and emergency preparedness and response activities are supported by operational readiness.

Assessment of drought resilience of hospitals in Sri Lanka: a cross-sectional survey.

Background: Drought is an extreme weather event. Drought-related health effects can increase demands on hospitals while restricting their functional capacity. In July 2017, Sri Lanka had been experiencing prolonged drought for around a year and data on the resilience of hospitals were required. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was done in five of the most drought-affected and vulnerable districts using two specially developed questionnaires. Ninety hospitals were assessed using the Baseline Hospital Drought Resilience Assessment (BHDRA) tool, of which 24 purposefully selected hospitals were also assessed using the more detailed Comprehensive Hospital Drought Resilience Assessment (CHDRA) tool and observation visits. Results: Of the hospitals assessed, 73 and 77 reported having adequate supplies of drinking and non-drinking water, respectively. Of the 24 hospitals studied using the CHDRA tool, bacteriological water quality testing was done in 8, with samples from only 4 hospitals being satisfactory. Adequate electricity supply was reported by 77 hospitals, of which 72 had at least one generator. None of the hospitals used rainwater or storm water harvesting, water recycling, or solar or wind power. Of the 24 hospitals selected for detailed analysis, awareness materials on safeguarding water or electricity and avoiding wasting water or electricity were displayed in only 6 hospitals; disaster preparedness plans were available in 9; and drought was considered as a hazard only in 6. Conclusion: The findings indicate that drought needs to be considered as an important hazard in hospital risk assessments. Drought preparedness, response and recovery should be embedded in hospital disaster preparedness plans to ensure the continuity of essential health services during emergencies.