PROBLEM: Improving pandemic planning and preparedness is a challenge in Europe, a diverse region whose regional bodies (the Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization [WHO], the European Commission and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) have overlapping roles and responsibilities. APPROACH: European pandemic preparedness indicators were used to develop an assessment tool and procedure based on the 2005 global WHO checklist for pandemic preparedness. These were then applied to Member States of WHO's European Region, initially as part of structured national assessments conducted during short visits by external teams. LOCAL SETTING: Countries in WHO's European Region. RELEVANT CHANGES: From 2005 to 2008, 43 countries underwent a pandemic preparedness assessment that included a short external assessment visit by an expert team. These short visits developed into a longer self-assessment procedure involving an external team but "owned" by the countries, which identified gaps and developed plans for improving preparedness. The assessment tool and procedure became more sophisticated as national and local pandemic preparedness became more complex. The 2009 pandemic revealed new gaps in planning, surveillance communications and immunization. LESSONS LEARNT: Structured national self-assessments with support from external teams allow individual countries to identify gaps in their pandemic preparedness plans and enable regional bodies to assess the regional and global resources that such plans require. The 2009 pandemic revealed additional problems with surveillance, pandemic severity estimates, the flexibility of the response, vaccination, involvement of health-care workers and communication. European national plans are being upgraded and global leadership is required to ensure that these plans are uniformly applied across the region.
PROBLEM: Improving pandemic planning and preparedness is a challenge in Europe, a diverse region whose regional bodies (the Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization [WHO], the European Commission and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) have overlapping roles and responsibilities. APPROACH: European pandemic preparedness indicators were used to develop an assessment tool and procedure based on the 2005 global WHO checklist for pandemic preparedness. These were then applied to Member States of WHO's European Region, initially as part of structured national assessments conducted during short visits by external teams. LOCAL SETTING: Countries in WHO's European Region. RELEVANT CHANGES: From 2005 to 2008, 43 countries underwent a pandemic preparedness assessment that included a short external assessment visit by an expert team. These short visits developed into a longer self-assessment procedure involving an external team but "owned" by the countries, which identified gaps and developed plans for improving preparedness. The assessment tool and procedure became more sophisticated as national and local pandemic preparedness became more complex. The 2009 pandemic revealed new gaps in planning, surveillance communications and immunization. LESSONS LEARNT: Structured national self-assessments with support from external teams allow individual countries to identify gaps in their pandemic preparedness plans and enable regional bodies to assess the regional and global resources that such plans require. The 2009 pandemic revealed additional problems with surveillance, pandemic severity estimates, the flexibility of the response, vaccination, involvement of health-care workers and communication. European national plans are being upgraded and global leadership is required to ensure that these plans are uniformly applied across the region.
Authors: A Nicoll; A Ammon; A Amato Gauci; A Amato; B Ciancio; P Zucs; I Devaux; F Plata; A Mazick; K Mølbak; T Asikainen; P Kramarz Journal: Public Health Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.427
Authors: J Mereckiene; S Cotter; J T Weber; A Nicoll; F D'Ancona; P L Lopalco; K Johansen; A M Wasley; P Jorgensen; D Lévy-Bruhl; C Giambi; P Stefanoff; L Dematte; D O'Flanagan Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2012-01-26
Authors: Simon Cauchemez; Neil M Ferguson; Claude Wachtel; Anders Tegnell; Guillaume Saour; Ben Duncan; Angus Nicoll Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Parker S Woods; Lauren M Doolittle; Lucia E Rosas; Lisa M Joseph; Edward P Calomeni; Ian C Davis Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 6.011
Authors: Lydia N Drumright; Simon D W Frost; Alex J Elliot; Mike Catchpole; Richard G Pebody; Mark Atkins; John Harrison; Penny Parker; Alison H Holmes Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Anastasiya S Sokolova; O Cyrilliclga I Yarovaya; Dina V Korchagina; Vladimir V Zarubaev; Tatiana S Tretiak; Pavel M Anfimov; Oleg I Kiselev; Nariman F Salakhutdinov Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Stefan Kluge; Julian Schulze Zur Wiesch; Thomas Theo Brehm; Marc van der Meirschen; Annette Hennigs; Kevin Roedl; Dominik Jarczak; Dominic Wichmann; Daniel Frings; Axel Nierhaus; Tim Oqueka; Walter Fiedler; Maximilian Christopeit; Christian Kraef; Alexander Schultze; Marc Lütgehetmann; Marylyn M Addo; Stefan Schmiedel Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Joseph A Weiner; Peter R Swiatek; Daniel J Johnson; Philip K Louie; Garrett K Harada; Michael H McCarthy; Niccole Germscheid; Jason P Y Cheung; Marko H Neva; Mohammad El-Sharkawi; Marcelo Valacco; Daniel M Sciubba; Norman B Chutkan; Howard S An; Dino Samartzis Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-08-07
Authors: Joseph A Weiner; Peter R Swiatek; Daniel J Johnson; Philip K Louie; Garrett K Harada; Michael H McCarthy; Niccole Germscheid; Jason P Y Cheung; Marko H Neva; Mohammad El-Sharkawi; Marcelo Valacco; Daniel M Sciubba; Norman B Chutken; Howard S An; Dino Samartzis Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 2.721