Guidance for Health Risk Assessment at Recurrent Mass Gatherings: The Jeddah Tool Framework

Kingsley L Bieh,Ahmed El-Ganainy,Anas Khan,Badriah Alotaibi,Nour Abdulmalek,Sujoud Ghallab,Nomai Mukhtar,Hani Jokhdar

doi:10.1017/s1049023x21000145

Kingsley L Bieh, Ahmed El-Ganainy + Show 6 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049023x21000145

Copy DOI

Abstract

A wide range of natural and man-made hazards increases the health risks at mass gatherings (MGs). Building on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed the Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management (H-EDRM) framework to strengthen preparedness, response, and recovery from health emergencies in the communities and emergency-prone settings, such as MGs. The Jeddah tool is derived from the H-EDRM framework as an all-hazard MG risk assessment tool, which provides a benchmark for monitoring progress made in capacity strengthening over a given period for recurrent MGs. Additionally, it introduces a reputational risk assessment domain to complement vulnerability and capacity assessment matrixes. This paper describes the key elements of the Jeddah tool to improve the understanding of health risk assessment at MGs in the overarching contexts of health emergencies and disaster risk reduction, in line with international goals.

Highlights

Over time, the definition of mass gatherings (MGs) has been broadened from the consideration of crowd size within a defined period and specified geographical area to prioritizing large gatherings that strain the health resources of the host.[1,2] Mass gatherings tend to be characterized by similar health risks, such as crowd-related incidents, effect of exposure to severe weather events, and the increased transmissibility of communicable diseases, among others.[3,4] Understanding disaster risk is a local and national priority under the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, which emphasizes an all-hazard and multi-sectorial approach to managing emergencies and disasters.[5]
The Jeddah tool is derived from the Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management (H-EDRM) framework as an all-hazard MG risk assessment tool, which provides a benchmark for monitoring progress made in capacity strengthening over a given period for recurrent MGs
This paper describes the key elements of the Jeddah tool to improve the understanding of health risk assessment at MGs in the overarching contexts of health emergencies and disaster risk reduction, in line with international goals

Summary

Introduction

The definition of mass gatherings (MGs) has been broadened from the consideration of crowd size within a defined period and specified geographical area to prioritizing large gatherings that strain the health resources of the host.[1,2] Mass gatherings tend to be characterized by similar health risks, such as crowd-related incidents, effect of exposure to severe weather events, and the increased transmissibility of communicable diseases, among others.[3,4] Understanding disaster risk is a local and national priority under the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, which emphasizes an all-hazard and multi-sectorial approach to managing emergencies and disasters.[5]. Characteristics of the Jeddah Tool Hazard Identification and Prioritization—In addition to historical threats from the MG or host community, the Jeddah tool categorized hazards into four groups alongside their potential data sources These include endemic diseases in participant’s country of origin; current local, national, or international disease outbreaks/health threats; historical data from similar events or contexts; and threats arising from changing hazard, host, or vector characteristics. For external causes of morbidity and mortality, the relevant indicators areas are incident command and coordination, communication, prehospital triage management, core HCW’s density, inpatient bed density, risk communication, and emergency response time. These indicator areas primarily assess the availability of policies, infrastructure, and services and incorporate the health system readiness to implement such policies or provide relevant services (Table 4). The actual hazard risk is categorized as low, moderate, high, and very high using 0-25th, 25th-50th, 50th-75th, and 75th-100th percentiles, respectively, of the range between the minimum and maximum expected risk scores (Table 5)

Discussion

Conclusion