Joint External Evaluation Process Research Articles

Joint external evaluation of the international health regulations (2005) capacity in South Sudan: assessing the country´s capacity for health security.

Introductionjoint external evaluation is a voluntary and collaborative process to assess a country´s capacity under International Health Regulations (2005) to prevent, detect, and respond to public health threats. The main objective is to measure a country´s status in building the necessary capacities to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats and establish a baseline measurement of capacities and capabilities. The Republic of South Sudan conducted the Joint External Evaluation from 16-20 October 2017, where its capacities were assessed to public health threats per the International Health Regulation (2005).Methodscross-sectional descriptive study of the Joint External Evaluation process and the findings are described along with major findings and recommendations for the country.ResultsSouth Sudan’s overall mean score across 48 indicators was 1.5 (min= 1, max= 4) and 42/48 indicators (87.5%) scored < 2 on a 1 to 5 scale. Technical areas in the prevent category with the lowest score were antimicrobial resistance, biosafety and biosecurity, and National legislation, policy, and financing. In the detect category, the mean score was 2. Technical areas with the lowest mean scores were workforce development and the National Laboratory System. Preparedness, medical countermeasures, personnel deployment, linking public health, and security authorities had the lowest scores in the respond category. Chemical events, radiation emergencies, and points of entry had a score of 1 in the other IHR-related hazards and points of entry category.ConclusionSouth Sudan’s mean score of 1.5 can be attributed to several civil conflicts experienced, which have impacted negatively on the health system. Recommendations from the Joint External Evaluation need to be implemented and these must be aligned with the costed National Action Plan for Health Security.

National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance: stakeholder analysis of implementation in Ghana

Background Understanding potential barriers to implementation of public health policy is important to ensure well-informed decisions, and stakeholders play critical roles in implementation. Stakeholder analysis is expected to shed light on Ghana’s progress with the implementation of the National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance since the completion of the Global Health Security Agenda’s Joint External Evaluation. The outcome of stakeholder analysis can improve understanding of their roles and institutional capacity to promote prudent use of antibiotics in populations at the community level. Methods Eight semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with participants of the Joint External Evaluation process, including personnel from the policy, research, and practice programs in Ghana’s public health sector. In-person interviews were conducted between September and October 2018 in the Greater Accra and Upper West regions. Results The analysis revealed four main themes: national burden of disease and antibiotic resistance, policy development, implementation barriers, and strategies. Ghana’s national antimicrobial policy and action plans to enhance public education and awareness align with the objectives of the Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. All respondents expressed concern about the increasing proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which they attribute in part to the inappropriate use of antibiotics in local communities. Although Ghana has laws to regulate the sale of antibiotics, enforcement has been a major challenge. Inadequate funding for monitoring compliance comprises the greatest challenge. Stakeholders also acknowledged the importance of strengthening cross-sectoral collaboration, and the need to leverage resources from the animal and environmental sectors through a One Health approach to ensure successful implementation of the national action plan. Conclusions This study identified several opportunities for effective implementation of the Ghana’s National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. Stakeholders were enthusiastic about the effectiveness of the One Health approach, and there is strong political will to promote multisectoral partnership to advance implementation efforts.

Assessing countries capacity for public health emergencies preparedness and response: the joint external evaluation process in Cameroon

INTRODUCTION: The International Health Regulation (2005) requires all countries to develop and maintain core capacities for preparedness and response to public health emergencies. The objective of this study was to assess Cameroon´s capacities to prevent, detect and respond to public health threats through the Joint External Evaluation process. METHODS: data for the 48 indicators within the 19 technical areas of the Joint External Evaluation tool were examined. The scores for the 19 technical areas were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and R.3.4.3 for descriptive statistics (median and interquartile ranges). RESULTS: Cameroon´s overall median score was 2 (Min =1, Max=4) and 34/48 indicators (71%) had scores less than 2 on a 1 to 5 scale. The weakest technical areas in the “Prevent” category were antimicrobial resistance, biosafety and biosecurity, and National legislation, policy and financing. In the “Detect” category, the median score was 2. Technical areas with the lowest median scores were reporting and national laboratory system. Emergency response operations, preparedness, medical countermeasures and personnel deployment had the lowest scores in the “Respond” category. Chemical events and points of entry had the lowest score in “Other IHR-related hazards and points of entry” category. CONCLUSION: recommendations from the Joint External Evaluation to address the gaps should be aligned in a National Action Plan for Health Security and implementation ensured by a high level multi sectoral platform to strengthen IHR core capacities in the country.

Conducting the Joint External Evaluation in Uganda: The Process and Lessons Learned.

Uganda is currently implementing the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), aiming at accelerating compliance to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005). To assess progress toward compliance, a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) was conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO). Based on this evaluation, we present the process and lessons learned. Uganda's methodological approach to the JEE followed the WHO recommendations, including conducting a whole-of-government in-country self-assessment prior to the final assessment, using the same tool at both assessments, and generating consensus scores during the final assessment. The in-country self-assessment process began on March 24, 2017, with a multisectoral representation of 203 subject matter experts from 81 institutions. The final assessment was conducted between June 26 and 30, 2017, by 15 external evaluators. Discrepancies between the in-country and final scores occurred in 27 of 50 indicators. Prioritized gaps from the JEE formed the basis of the National Action Plan for Health Security. We learned 4 major lessons from this process: subject matter experts should be adequately oriented on the scoring requirements of the JEE tool; whole-of-government representation should be ensured during the entire JEE process; equitable multisectoral implementation of IHR activities must be ensured; and over-reliance on external support is a threat to sustainability of GHSA gains.

Analysis of sectoral participation in the development of Joint External Evaluations

BackgroundThe Joint External Evaluation Process (JEE), developed in response to the 2014 Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), is a voluntary, independent process conducted by a team of external evaluators to assess a country’s public health preparedness capabilities under the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) revision. Feedback from the JEE process is intended to aid in the development of national action plans by elucidating weaknesses in current preparedness and response capabilities.MethodsTo identify gaps in sector participation and the development of national action plans in response to public health emergencies, all English-language JEE reports available on March 31, 2018 (N = 47) were systematically reviewed to determine sectoral backgrounds of key host country participants.ResultsOverall, strong representation was seen in the health, agriculture, domestic security, and environment sectors, whereas the energy/nuclear and defense sectors were largely under-represented.ConclusionsWhile strong participation by more traditional sectors such as health and agriculture is common in the JEE development process, involvement by the defense and energy/nuclear sectors in the JEE process could be increased, potentially improving preparedness and response to widespread public health emergencies.

Synergising tools for capacity assessment and One Health operationalisation.

Multisectoral, One Health collaboration is essential for addressing national and international health threats that arise at the human-animal-environment interface. Thanks to the efforts of multiple organisations, countries now have an array of One Health tools available to assess capacities within and between sectors, plan and prioritise activities, and strengthen multisectoral, One Health coordination, communication, and collaboration. By doing so, they are able to address health threats at the human-animal-environment interface, including emerging zoonotic and infectious diseases, more efficiently. However, to ensure optimal outcomes for the countries using these One Health tools, the partners responsible for implementation should regularly collaborate and share information such as implementation timelines, results and lessons learned, so that one process can inform the next. This paper presents a consensus framework on how commonly implemented One Health tools might align to best support countries in strengthening One Health systems. Twelve One Health tools were selected based on their high implementation rates, authors' experience with these tools and their focus on multisectoral, One Health coordination. Through a four-step process, the authors: a) jointly carried out a landscape analysis of One Health tools, using a Cloudbased spreadsheet to share the unique characteristics and applications of each tool; b) performed an implementation analysis to identify and share implementation dynamics and identify respective outcomes and synergies; c) jointly created a consensus conceptual model of how the authors suggest the tools might logically work together; and d) extrapolated from steps 1-3 an agreed-upon overarching conceptual framework for how current and future One Health tools could be categorised to best support One Health system strengthening at the national level. Highlighted One Health tools include the States Parties Annual Reporting Tool under the International Health Regulations (IHR), the World Organisation for Animal Health Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathway, the Joint External Evaluation process, IHR/PVS National Bridging Workshops, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization Tool, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Laboratory Mapping Tool, the FAO Assessment Tool for Laboratories and Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Systems, the FAO Surveillance Evaluation Tool, the One Health Systems Mapping and Analysis Resource Toolkit, the National Action Plan for Health Security, and IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework tools for After Action Reviews and Simulation Exercises. A new guidance document entitled, Taking a Multisectoral, One Health Approach: A Tripartite Guide to Addressing Zoonotic Diseases in Countries was also included as a framework that provides guidance to support the implementation of the outputs of the tools described.

Analysis of results from the Joint External Evaluation: examining its strength and assessing for trends among participating countries.

BackgroundThe Joint External Evaluation (JEE) is part of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) new process to help countries assess their ability to prevent, detect and respond to public health threats such as infectious disease outbreaks, as specified by the International Health Regulations (IHR). How countries are faring on these evaluations is not well known and neither is there any previous assessment of the performance characteristics of the JEE process itself.MethodsWe obtained JEE data for 48 indicators collectively across 19 technical areas of preparedness for 55 countries. The indicators are scored on a 1 to 5 scale with 4 indicating demonstrated capacity. We created a standardized JEE index score representing cumulative performance across indicators using principal components analysis. We examined the state of performance across all indicators and then examined the relationship between this index score and select demographic and health variables to better understand potential drivers of performance.ResultsAmong our study cohort, the median performance on 43 of the 48 (89.6%) indicators was less than 4, suggesting that countries were failing to meet demonstrated capacity on these measures. The two weakest indicators were related to antimicrobial resistance (median score = 1.0, interquartile range = 1.0-2.0) and biosecurity response (median score = 2.0, interquartile range = 2.0-3.0). JEE index scores correlated with various metrics of health outcomes (life expectancy, under-five year mortality rate, disability-adjusted life years lost to communicable diseases) and with standard measures of social and economic development that enable public health system performance in the total sample, but in stratified analyses, these relationships were much weaker in the AFRO region.ConclusionsWe find large variations in JEE scores among countries and WHO regions with many nations still unprepared for the next disease outbreak with pandemic potential The strong correlations between JEE performance and metrics of both health outcomes and health systems’ performance suggests that the JEE is likely accurately measuring the strength of IHR-specific, public health capabilities.

World Health Organization Joint External Evaluations in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 2016-17.

By 2014, only 33% of countries had self-reported compliance with the International Health Regulations (2005), including 8 countries from the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). During the Ebola epidemic, the discovery of a gap between objective assessment and self-reports for certain IHR capacities prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) to review and update the IHR monitoring and evaluation framework to include a voluntary objective review process, called Joint External Evaluation (JEE), that did not exist before. The regional committee for the EMR approved the JEE and encouraged its 21 member states to volunteer for reviews. Standardized processes and procedures were developed for conducting JEEs. Of the 52 JEEs completed to date globally, 14 (27%) are from the EMR. Three (21%) of 14 member states completing the JEE in the EMR have also worked on a post-JEE national action plan for health security (NAPHS). A survey conducted about the JEE experience from focal points in EMR member states underlined the strengths of the JEE process: its multisectoral and open discussion approach; standardization of the JEE process; WHO's critical role in supporting JEE preparation and conduct; and the need for guidance development for a costed NAPHS. The success of JEEs depends not only on proper preparations and completion of the JEE but also on the development of a country-led, owned, and costed NAPHS and its implementation, including financial commitments along with donor and partners' engagement and coordination.

Joint External Evaluation-Development and Scale-Up of Global Multisectoral Health Capacity Evaluation Process.

The Joint External Evaluation (JEE), a consolidation of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR 2005) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and the Global Health Security Agenda country assessment tool, is an objective, voluntary, independent peer-to-peer multisectoral assessment of a country’s health security preparedness and response capacity across 19 IHR technical areas. WHO approved the standardized JEE tool in February 2016. The JEE process is wholly transparent; countries request a JEE and are encouraged to make its findings public. Donors (e.g., member states, public and private partners, and other public health institutions) can support countries in addressing identified JEE gaps, and implementing country-led national action plans for health security. Through July 2017, 52 JEEs were completed, and 25 more countries were scheduled across WHO’s 6 regions. JEEs facilitate progress toward IHR 2005 implementation, thereby building trust and mutual accountability among countries to detect and respond to public health threats.

Joint external evaluation process: bringing multiple sectors together for global health security.

Joint external evaluation process: bringing multiple sectors together for global health security.

Implementation of the IHR Joint External Evaluation: Taiwan's Experiences.

In February 2016, the World Health Organization developed the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool to independently assess country capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to public health threats as part of the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) monitoring and evaluation framework. In light of this, the Taiwan government actively engaged at least 19 government agencies or institutions and voluntarily implemented the JEE. An External Assessment Team consisting of 6 US subject matter experts conducted the external evaluation, including site visits, from June 21 to July 1, 2016. The results, published on October 18, 2016, are useful and will be translated into actions and change in the system. Based on Taiwan's experiences, early stakeholder engagement and an experts' pre-JEE pilot visit would contribute to a successful JEE process.