scholarly journals (A287) Who Regional Office for Europe - Health Systems Crisis Preparedness Assessment Tool

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S1) ◽  
pp. s80-s80 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.P. Bayer ◽  
G. Rockenschaub
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
World Health ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Sudden Increase ◽  
Crisis Preparedness ◽  
Future Health ◽  
Regional Office

WHO Regional Office for Europe - Health Systems Crisis Preparedness Assessment Tool Bayer CP, Rockenschaub G.ObjectivesHealth crises are often unpredictable and may occur at any place or time. Communities are particularly vulnerable when local and national systems, specifically health systems, are unable to cope with the consequences of a crisis, usually because they are overwhelmed by a sudden increase in demand or because the institutions that underpin them are fragile and cannot deliver what is required. The World Health Organization (WHO) Europe Health System Crisis Preparedness Assessment Tool aims to provide guidance to ministries of health and other relevant authorities on evaluation and strengthening of their health system's capacities for crisis management.MethodsBased on an all hazard approach, an assessment tool was developed which comprises essential attributes considered vital for countries to meet the challenges of future health crises. The foundation of the tool derived from expert consultation workshops and pilot testing in eight countries in the WHO European Region.ResultsThe tool lists essential attributes with respective indicators crucial for evaluating and identifying gaps in health system crisis preparedness. The assessment tool is structured according to the six building blocks of the WHO health system framework and is complemented by a user manual, allowing countries to apply a self–assessment approach. The tool is intended for use by ministries of health or other relevant institutions.ConclusionsThe tool may help determine the current status of health system crisis preparedness and facilitate the development of a prioritized plan of action that addresses any gaps identified. When used regularly the tool will help monitor progress.

scholarly journals Health systems readiness to provide geriatric friendly care services in Uganda: a cross-sectional study

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jude Thaddeus Ssensamba ◽  
Moses Mukuru ◽  
Mary Nakafeero ◽  
Ronald Ssenyonga ◽  
Suzanne N. Kiwanuka
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Facility ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Health Facilities ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
World Health ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Southern Central

Abstract Background As ageing emerges as the next public health threat in Africa, there is a paucity of information on how prepared its health systems are to provide geriatric friendly care services. In this study, we explored the readiness of Uganda’s public health system to offer geriatric friendly care services in Southern Central Uganda. Methods Four districts with the highest proportion of old persons in Southern Central Uganda were purposively selected, and a cross-section of 18 randomly selected health facilities (HFs) were visited and assessed for availability of critical items deemed important for provision of geriatric friendly services; as derived from World Health Organization’s Age-friendly primary health care centres toolkit. Data was collected using an adapted health facility geriatric assessment tool, entered into Epi-data software and analysed using STATA version 14. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s post hoc tests were conducted to determine any associations between readiness, health facility level, and district. Results The overall readiness index was 16.92 (SD ±4.19) (range 10.8–26.6). This differed across districts; Lwengo 17.91 (SD ±3.15), Rakai 17.63 (SD ±4.55), Bukomansimbi 16.51 (SD ±7.18), Kalungu 13.74 (SD ±2.56) and facility levels; Hospitals 26.62, Health centers four (HCIV) 20.05 and Health centers three (HCIII) 14.80. Low readiness was due to poor scores concerning; leadership (0%), financing (0%), human resources (1.7%) and health management information systems (HMIS) (11.8%) WHO building blocks. Higher-level HFs were statistically significantly friendlier than lower-level HFs (p = 0.015). The difference in readiness between HCIIIs and HCIVs was 2.39 (p = 0.025). Conclusion There is a low readiness for public health facilities to provide geriatric friendly care services in Uganda. This is due to gaps in all of the health system building blocks. There is a need for health system reforms in Uganda to adequately cater for service provision for older adults if the 2020 global healthy ageing goal is to be met.

scholarly journals Health systems readiness to provide geriatric friendly care services in Uganda: a cross-sectional study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jude Thaddeus Ssensamba ◽  
Moses Mukuru ◽  
Mary Nakafeero ◽  
Ronald Ssenyonga ◽  
Suzanne N Kiwanuka
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Facility ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Health Facilities ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
World Health ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Southern Central

Abstract Background As ageing emerges as the next public health threat in Africa, there is a paucity of information on how prepared its health systems are to provide geriatric friendly care services. In this study, we explored the readiness of Uganda’s public health system to provide geriatric friendly care services in Southern Central Uganda. Methods Four districts with the highest proportion of old persons in Southern Central Uganda were purposively selected, and a cross section of 18 randomly selected health facilities (HFs) were visited and assessed for availability of key items deemed important for provision of geriatric friendly services; as derived from World Health Organization’s Age-friendly primary health care centres toolkit. Data was collected using an adapted health facility geriatric assessment tool, entered into Epi-data software and analysed using STATA version 14. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s post hoc tests were conducted to determine any associations between readiness, health facility level and district. Results The overall readiness index was 16.92 (SD ±4.19) (range 10.8 - 26.6). This differed across districts; Lwengo 17.91 (SD ±3.15), Rakai 17.63 (SD ±4.55), Bukomansimbi 16.51 (SD ±7.18), Kalungu 13.74 (SD ±2.56) and facility levels; Hospitals 26.62, Health centers four (HCIV) 20.05 and Health centers three (HCIII) 14.80. Low readiness was due to poor scores with regard to; leadership (0%), financing (0%), human resources (1.7%) and health management information systems (HMIS) (11.8%) WHO building blocks. Higher level HFs were statistically significantly friendlier than lower level HFs (p= 0.015). The difference in readiness between HCIIIs and HCIVs was 2.39 (p=0.025). Conclusion There is low readiness of public health facilities to provide geriatric friendly care services in Uganda. This is due to gaps in all of the health system building blocks. There is a need for health system reforms in Uganda to adequately cater for service provision for old people if the 2020 global healthy ageing goal is to be met.

scholarly journals Health systems readiness to provide geriatric friendly care services in Uganda: a cross-sectional study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jude Thaddeus Ssensamba ◽  
Moses Mukuru ◽  
Mary Nakafeero ◽  
Ronald Ssenyonga ◽  
Suzanne N Kiwanuka
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Facility ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Health Facilities ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
World Health ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Southern Central

Abstract Background As ageing emerges as the next public health threat in Africa, there is a paucity of information on how prepared its health systems are to provide geriatric friendly care services. In this study, we explored the readiness of Uganda’s public health system to provide geriatric friendly care services in Southern Central Uganda. Methods Four districts with the highest proportion of old persons in Southern Central Uganda were purposively selected, and a cross section of 18 randomly selected health facilities (HFs) were visited and assessed for availability of key items deemed important for provision of geriatric friendly services; as derived from World Health Organization’s Age-friendly primary health care centres toolkit. Data was collected using an adapted health facility geriatric assessment tool, entered into Epi-data software and analysed using STATA version 14. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s post hoc tests were conducted to determine any associations between readiness, health facility level and district. Results The overall readiness index was 16.92 (SD ±4.19) (range 10.8 - 26.6). This differed across districts; Lwengo 17.91 (SD ±3.15), Rakai 17.63 (SD ±4.55), Bukomansimbi 16.51 (SD ±7.18), Kalungu 13.74 (SD ±2.56) and facility levels; Hospitals 26.62, Health centers four (HCIV) 20.05 and Health centers three (HCIII) 14.80. Low readiness was due to poor scores with regard to; leadership (0%), financing (0%), human resources (1.7%) and health management information systems (HMIS) (11.8%) WHO building blocks. Higher level HFs were statistically significantly friendlier than lower level HFs (p= 0.015). The difference in readiness between HCIIIs and HCIVs was 2.39 (p=0.025). Conclusion There is low readiness of public health facilities to provide geriatric friendly care services in Uganda. This is due to gaps in all of the health system building blocks. There is a need for health system reforms in Uganda to adequately cater for service provision for old people if the 2020 global healthy ageing goal is to be met.

scholarly journals Health systems readiness to provide geriatric friendly care services in Uganda: a cross-sectional study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jude Thaddeus Ssensamba ◽  
Moses Mukuru ◽  
Mary Nakafeero ◽  
Ronald Ssenyonga ◽  
Suzanne N Kiwanuka
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Facility ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Health Facilities ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
World Health ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Southern Central

Abstract Background As ageing emerges as the next public health threat in Africa, there is a paucity of information on how prepared its health systems are to provide geriatric friendly care services. In this study, we explored the readiness of Uganda’s public health system to provide geriatric friendly care services in Southern Central Uganda. Methods Four districts with the highest proportion of old persons in Southern Central Uganda were purposively selected, and a cross section of 18 randomly selected health facilities (HFs) were visited and assessed for availability of key items deemed important for provision of geriatric friendly services; as derived from World Health Organization’s Age-friendly primary health care centres toolkit. Data was collected using an adapted health facility geriatric assessment tool, entered into Epi-data software and analysed using STATA version 14. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s post hoc tests were conducted to determine any associations between readiness, health facility level and district. Results The overall readiness index was 16.92 (SD ±4.19) (range 10.8 - 26.6). This differed across districts; Lwengo 17.91 (SD ±3.15), Rakai 17.63 (SD ±4.55), Bukomansimbi 16.51 (SD ±7.18), Kalungu 13.74 (SD ±2.56) and facility levels; Hospitals 26.62, Health centers four (HCIV) 20.05 and Health centers three (HCIII) 14.80. Low readiness was due to poor scores with regard to; leadership (0%), financing (0%), human resources (1.7%) and health management information systems (HMIS) (11.8%) WHO building blocks. Higher level HFs were statistically significantly friendlier than lower level HFs (p= 0.015). The difference in readiness between HCIIIs and HCIVs was 2.39 (p=0.025). Conclusion There is low readiness of public health facilities to provide geriatric friendly care services in Uganda. This is due to gaps in all of the health system building blocks. There is a need for health system reforms in Uganda to adequately cater for service provision for old people if the 2020 global healthy ageing goal is to be met.

scholarly journals 22.F. Workshop: What makes for resilient health systems? Evidence from the State of Health in the EU country profiles

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
The State ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Health System Strengthening ◽  
New Work ◽  
State Of Health ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Commission's State of Health in the EU (SoHEU) initiative aims to provide factual, comparative data and insights into health and health systems in EU countries. The resulting Country Health Profiles, published every two years (current editions: November 2019) are the joint work of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies and the OECD, in cooperation with the European Commission. They are designed to support the efforts of Member States in their evidence-based policy making and to contribute to health care systems' strengthening. In addition to short syntheses of population health status, determinants of health and the organisation of the health system, the Country Profiles provide an assessment of the health system, looking at its effectiveness, accessibility and resilience. The idea of resilient health systems has been gaining traction among policy makers. The framework developed for the Country Profiles template sets out three dimensions and associated policy strategies and indicators as building blocks for assessing resilience. The framework adopts a broader definition of resilience, covering the ability to respond to extreme shocks as well as measures to address more predictable and chronic health system strains, such as population ageing or multimorbidity. However, the current framework predates the onset of the novel coronavirus pandemic as well as new work on resilience being done by the SoHEU project partners. This workshop aims to present resilience-enhancing strategies and challenges to a wide audience and to explore how using the evidence from the Country Profiles can contribute to strengthening health systems and improving their performance. A brief introduction on the SoHEU initiative will be followed by the main presentation on the analytical framework on resilience used for the Country Profiles. Along with country examples, we will present the wider results of an audit of the most common health system resilience strategies and challenges emerging from the 30 Country Profiles in 2019. A roundtable discussion will follow, incorporating audience contributions online. The Panel will discuss the results on resilience actions from the 2019 Country Profiles evidence, including: Why is resilience important as a practical objective and how is it related to health system strengthening and performance? How can countries use their resilience-related findings to steer national reform efforts? In addition, panellists will outline how lessons learned from country responses to the Covid-19 pandemic and new work on resilience by the Observatory (resilience policy briefs), OECD (2020 Health at a Glance) and the EC (Expert Group on Health Systems Performance Assessment (HSPA) Report on Resilience) can feed in and improve the resilience framework that will be used in the 2021 Country Profiles. Key messages Knowing what makes health systems resilient can improve their performance and ability to meet the current and future needs of their populations. The State of Health in the EU country profiles generate EU-wide evidence on the common resilience challenges facing countries’ health systems and the strategies being employed to address them.

scholarly journals Diagnostics and monitoring tools for noncommunicable diseases: a missing component in the global response

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Bernabé-Ortiz ◽  
Jessica H. Zafra-Tanaka ◽  
Miguel Moscoso-Porras ◽  
Rangarajan Sampath ◽  
Beatrice Vetter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Communicable Diseases ◽  
Noncommunicable Disease ◽  
World Health ◽  
Noncommunicable Diseases ◽  
Diagnostic Tools ◽  
Monitoring Tools

AbstractA key component of any health system is the capacity to accurately diagnose individuals. One of the six building blocks of a health system as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) includes diagnostic tools. The WHO’s Noncommunicable Disease Global Action Plan includes addressing the lack of diagnostics for noncommunicable diseases, through multi-stakeholder collaborations to develop new technologies that are affordable, safe, effective and quality controlled, and improving laboratory and diagnostic capacity and human resources. Many challenges exist beyond price and availability for the current tools included in the Package of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Interventions (PEN) for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases. These include temperature stability, adaptability to various settings (e.g. at high altitude), need for training in order to perform and interpret the test, the need for maintenance and calibration, and for Blood Glucose Meters non-compatible meters and test strips. To date the issues surrounding access to diagnostic and monitoring tools for noncommunicable diseases have not been addressed in much detail. The aim of this Commentary is to present the current landscape and challenges with regards to guidance from the WHO on diagnostic tools using the WHO REASSURED criteria, which define a set of key characteristics for diagnostic tests and tools. These criteria have been used for communicable diseases, but so far have not been used for noncommunicable diseases. Diagnostic tools have played an important role in addressing many communicable diseases, such as HIV, TB and neglected tropical diseases. Clearly more attention with regards to diagnostics for noncommunicable diseases as a key component of the health system is needed.

scholarly journals Health system gaps in cardiovascular disease prevention and management in Nepal

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Archana Shrestha ◽  
Rashmi Maharjan ◽  
Biraj Man Karmacharya ◽  
Swornim Bajracharya ◽  
Niharika Jha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
National Health ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Health Spending ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Critical System ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
The Government

Abstract Background Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of deaths and disability in Nepal. Health systems can improve CVD health outcomes even in resource-limited settings by directing efforts to meet critical system gaps. This study aimed to identify Nepal’s health systems gaps to prevent and manage CVDs. Methods We formed a task force composed of the government and non-government representatives and assessed health system performance across six building blocks: governance, service delivery, human resources, medical products, information system, and financing in terms of equity, access, coverage, efficiency, quality, safety and sustainability. We reviewed 125 national health policies, plans, strategies, guidelines, reports and websites and conducted 52 key informant interviews. We grouped notes from desk review and transcripts’ codes into equity, access, coverage, efficiency, quality, safety and sustainability of the health system. Results National health insurance covers less than 10% of the population; and more than 50% of the health spending is out of pocket. The efficiency of CVDs prevention and management programs in Nepal is affected by the shortage of human resources, weak monitoring and supervision, and inadequate engagement of stakeholders. There are policies and strategies in place to ensure quality of care, however their implementation and supervision is weak. The total budget on health has been increasing over the past five years. However, the funding on CVDs is negligible. Conclusion Governments at the federal, provincial and local levels should prioritize CVDs care and partner with non-government organizations to improve preventive and curative CVDs services.

scholarly journals 29.F. Workshop: The Health Systems and Policy Monitor network: reforms and health system changes in the spotlight

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
World Health ◽  
State Of Health ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Observatory established the Health Systems and Policy Monitor (HSPM) network in 2008, bringing together an international group of high-profile institutions from Europe and beyond with high academic standing in health systems and policy analysis. An important step was taken in 2011, when the Bertelsmann Health Policy Monitor, a 20-country-project with already significant overlap with the current HSPM network, merged with the Observatory's network of national lead institutions. Today, the network includes 40 institutions from 31 countries, with members participating in a wide range of activities and collaborations, such as writing the Observatory's flagship health system reports (HiTs), keeping the health policy community up-to-date on health system developments via the HSPM web platform, and contributing their expertise to reports, studies and knowledge transfer exercises co-ordinated by the Observatory for a variety of audiences, including ministries of health and international organisations such as the World Health Organization and the European Commission. In addition, network members participate in an annual meeting, hosted in a different member country every year, coming together over two days to exchange knowledge and experiences about the various health system reforms happening in their countries. The aim of these meetings is to present, discuss and start comparative research collaborations of the members that can inform policymaking. As part of a collaboration with the journal Health Policy, researchers of the HSPM network have published more than 100 articles on cross-country comparisons of policies or on ongoing nation health reforms in a special section - the Health Reform Monitor - of the journal. This workshop aims to provide the audience with an overview of the network and its expanding range of activities. An introductory presentation will briefly introduce the origins of the network and discuss its current line of work. The second presentation will provide an overview of reform trends that are routinely collected during the annual meetings as part of the “reform roundup”. The third presentation will give an example of how the network has contributed to the European Commission's State of Health in the EU initiative, by performing a 'rapid response” that informed the companion report to the State of Health in the EU country health profiles 2019. The fourth presentation is a typical example of the kind of collaborative work that the network is undertaking, i.e. involving multiple countries on a topic of shared interest. The workshop will conclude with a debate with the audience about the conceptual and methodological challenges as well as opportunities and future directions of cross-country comparative research and the HSPM network in particular. Key messages The Health Systems and Policy Monitor Network provides detailed descriptions of health systems and provides up to date information on reforms and changes that are particularly policy relevant. The Health Systems and Policy Monitor Network increasingly engages in comparative health systems research and knowledge transfer activities.

scholarly journals What makes health systems resilient against infectious disease outbreaks and natural hazards? Results from a scoping review

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer B. Nuzzo ◽  
Diane Meyer ◽  
Michael Snyder ◽  
Sanjana J. Ravi ◽  
Ana Lapascu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Health System ◽  
Natural Hazards ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Disease Outbreaks ◽  
World Health ◽  
Infectious Disease Outbreaks ◽  
System Resilience

Abstract Background The 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak was a wake-up call regarding the critical importance of resilient health systems. Fragile health systems can become overwhelmed during public health crises, further exacerbating the human, economic, and political toll. Important work has been done to describe the general attributes of a health system resilient to these crises, and the next step will be to identify the specific capacities that health systems need to develop and maintain to achieve resiliency. Methods We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify recurring themes and capacities needed for health system resiliency to infectious disease outbreaks and natural hazards and any existing implementation frameworks that highlight these capacities. We also sought to identify the overlap of the identified themes and capacities with those highlighted in the World Health Organization’s Joint External Evaluation. Sources of evidence included PubMed, Web of Science, OAIster, and the websites of relevant major public health organizations. Results We identified 16 themes of health system resilience, including: the need to develop plans for altered standards of care during emergencies, the need to develop plans for post-event recovery, and a commitment to quality improvement. Most of the literature described the general attributes of a resilient health system; no implementation frameworks were identified that could translate these elements into specific capacities that health system actors can employ to improve resilience to outbreaks and natural hazards in a variety of settings. Conclusions An implementation-oriented health system resilience framework could help translate the important components of a health system identified in this review into specific capacities that actors in the health system could work to develop to improve resilience to public health crises. However, there remains a need to further refine the concept of resilience so that health systems can simultaneously achieve sustainable transformations in healthcare practice and health service delivery as well as improve their preparedness for emergencies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document