Background: following the importation of the first Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case into Africa on 14 February 2020 in Egypt, the World Health Organisation (WHO) regional office for Africa (AFRO) activated a three-level incident management support team (IMST), with technical pillars, to coordinate planning, implementing, supervision, and monitoring of the situation and progress of implementation as well as response to the pandemic in the region. At WHO AFRO, one of the pillars was the health operations and technical expertise (HOTE) pillar with five sub-pillars: case management, infection prevention and control, risk communication and community engagement, laboratory, and emergency medical team (EMT). This paper documents the learnings (both positive and negative for consideration of change) from the activities of the HOTE pillar and recommends future actions for improving its coordination for future emergencies, especially for multi-country outbreaks or pandemic emergency responses. Method: we conducted a document review of the HOTE pillar coordination meetings’ minutes, reports, policy and strategy documents of the activities, and outcomes and feedback on updates on the HOTE pillar given at regular intervals to the Regional IMST. In addition, key informant interviews were conducted with 14 members of the HOTE sub pillar. Key Learnings: the pandemic response revealed that shared decision making, collaborative coordination, and planning have been significant in the COVID-19 response in Africa. The HOTE pillar’s response structure contributed to attaining the IMST objectives in the African region and translated to timely support for the WHO AFRO and the member states. However, while the coordination mechanism appeared robust, some challenges included duplication of coordination efforts, communication, documentation, and information management. Recommendations: we recommend streamlining the flow of information to better understand the challenges that countries face. There is a need to define the role and responsibilities of sub-pillar team members and provide new team members with information briefs to guide them on where and how to access internal information and work under the pillar. A unified documentation system is important and could help to strengthen intra-pillar collaboration and communication. Various indicators should be developed to constantly monitor the HOTE team’s deliverables, performance and its members.

Introduction:the emergence and re-emergence of zoonotic diseases have threatened both human and animal health globally since their identification in the 20th century. Rift Valley fever (RVF) virus is a recurrent zoonotic disease in South Sudan, with the earliest RVF cases confirmed in 2007 in Kapoeta North County, Eastern Equatoria state. Methods:we analyzed national RVF outbreak data to describe the epidemiological pattern of the RVF outbreak in Yirol East county in Lakes State. The line list of cases (confirmed, probable, suspected, and non-cases) was used to describe the pattern and risk factors associated with the outbreak. The animal and human blood samples were tested using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) (Immunoglobulin IgG and IgM) and Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR). Qualitative data were collected from weekly RVF situation reports, and national guidelines and policies. Results:between December 2017 and December 2018, 58 suspected human RVF cases were reported. The cases were reclassified based on laboratory and investigations results, such that as of 16th December 2018, there were a total of six (10.3%) laboratory-confirmed, three (5.2%) probable, one (1.7%) suspected, and 48 (82.8%) non-cases were reported. A total of four deaths were reported during the outbreak (case fatality rate (CFR) 6.8% (4/58). A total of 28 samples were collected from animals; of these, six tested positives for RVF (positivity rate of 32.1% (9/28). The outbreak was announced in March 2018, after four months of the first reported suspected RVF case. Several factors were attributed to the delayed notification and outbreak announcement such as lack of multi-sectorial coordination at the state and county level, multi-sectoral coordination at national level mostly attended by public health experts from human health, inadequate animal health surveillance, poor coordination between livestock disease surveillance and public health surveillance, limited in-country laboratory diagnostic capacity, the laboratory results for the animal health took longer than expected, and lack of a national One Health approach strategy. Conclusion:the outbreak demonstrated gaps to investigate and respond to zoonotic disease outbreaks in South Sudan.

Abstract Background From May 2018 to the end of June 2022, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) experienced six Ebola virus disease outbreaks within its borders. During the 10th EVD outbreak, the largest experienced in the DRC and the second largest and most prolonged EVD outbreak recorded globally, a WHO risk assessment identified nine countries bordering the DRC as moderate to high risk from cross border importation. Burundi, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda were classified as priority one countries while Angola, Central African Republic, Congo, Tanzania and Zambia as priority two. These countries implemented varying levels of Ebola virus disease preparedness interventions. This case study highlights the gains and shortfalls with the Ebola virus disease preparedness interventions against the background of a renewed and growing commitment for global epidemic preparedness highlighted during recent World Health Assembly events. Main text Several positive impacts from preparedness support to countries bordering the affected provinces in the DRC were identified, including development of sustained capacities which were leveraged upon to respond to the subsequent COVID-19 pandemic. Shortfalls such as lost opportunities in vertical approaches to response pillars such as surveillance, over dependence on external support and duplication of efforts especially in the areas of capacity building were also identified. A recurrent theme that emerged from this case study is the propensity towards implementing short-term interventions during Ebola virus disease outbreak preparedness and response rather than sustainable investment into strengthening systems for improved health security in alignment with IHR obligations and the Sustainable Development Goals. Conclusions Despite several international frameworks established at the global level for emergency preparedness, a shortfall exists between global policy and practice in countries at high risk of cross border transmission from persistent Ebola virus disease outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo. With renewed global health commitment for country emergency preparedness resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and cumulating in a resolution for a pandemic preparedness treaty, the time to review and address these gaps and provide recommendations for more sustainable approaches to emergency preparedness towards achieving global health security is now.

Background::From May 2018 to September 2022, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) experienced seven Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreaks within its borders. During the 10th EVD outbreak (2018–2020), the largest experienced in the DRC and the second largest and most prolonged EVD outbreak recorded globally, a WHO risk assessment identified nine countries bordering the DRC as moderate to high risk from cross border importation. These countries implemented varying levels of Ebola virus disease preparedness interventions. This case study highlights the gains and shortfalls with the Ebola virus disease preparedness interventions within the various contexts of these countries against the background of a renewed and growing commitment for global epidemic preparedness highlighted during recent World Health Assembly events.Main text::Several positive impacts from preparedness support to countries bordering the affected provinces in the DRC were identified, including development of sustained capacities which were leveraged upon to respond to the subsequent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Shortfalls such as lost opportunities for operationalizing cross-border regional preparedness collaboration and better integration of multidisciplinary perspectives, vertical approaches to response pillars such as surveillance, over dependence on external support and duplication of efforts especially in areas of capacity building were also identified. A recurrent theme that emerged from this case study is the propensity towards implementing short-term interventions during active Ebola virus disease outbreaks for preparedness rather than sustainable investment into strengthening systems for improved health security in alignment with IHR obligations, the Sustainable Development Goals and advocating global policy for addressing the larger structural determinants underscoring these outbreaks.Conclusions::Despite several international frameworks established at the global level for emergency preparedness, a shortfall exists between global policy and practice in countries at high risk of cross border transmission from persistent Ebola virus disease outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo. With renewed global health commitment for country emergency preparedness resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and cumulating in a resolution for a pandemic preparedness treaty, the time to review and address these gaps and provide recommendations for more sustainable and integrative approaches to emergency preparedness towards achieving global health security is now.

Introduction: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) declared its 10th outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in 42 years on August 1st 2018. The rapid rise and spread of the EVD outbreak threatened health security in neighboring countries and global health security. The United Nations developed an EVD preparedness and readiness (EVD-PR) plan to assist the nine neighboring countries to advance their critical preparedness measures. In Uganda, EVD-PR was implemented between 2018 and 2019. The World Health Organization commissioned an independent evaluation to assess the impact of the investment in EVD-PR in Uganda. Objectives: i) to document the program achievements; ii) to determine if the capacities developed represented good value for the funds and resources invested; iii) to assess if more cost-effective or sustainable alternative approaches were available; iv) to explore if the investments were aligned with country public health priorities; and v) to document the factors that contributed to the program success or failure. Methods: during the EVD preparedness phase, Uganda's government conducted a risk assessment and divided the districts into three categories, based on the potential risk of EVD. Category I included districts that shared a border with the DRC provinces where EVD was ongoing or any other district with a direct transport route to the DRC. Category II were districts that shared a border with the DRC but not bordering the DRC provinces affected by the EVD outbreak. Category III was the remaining districts in Uganda. EVD-PR was implemented at the national level and in 22 category I districts. We interviewed key informants involved in program design, planning and implementation or monitoring at the national level and in five purposively selected category I districts. Results: Ebola virus disease preparedness and readiness was a success and this was attributed mainly to donor support, the ministry of health's technical capacity, good coordination, government support and community involvement. The resources invested in EVD-PR represented good value for the funds and the activities were well aligned to the public health priorities for Uganda. Conclusion: Ebola virus disease preparedness and readiness program in Uganda developed capacities that played an essential role in preventing cross border spread of EVD from the affected provinces in the DRC and enabled rapid containment of the two importation events. These capacities are now being used to detect and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

South Sudan implemented Ebola virus disease preparedness interventions aiming at preventing and rapidly containing any importation of the virus from the Democratic Republic of Congo starting from August 2018. One of these interventions was a surveillance system which included an Ebola alert management system. This study analyzed the performance of this system. A descriptive cross-sectional study of the Ebola virus disease alerts which were reported in South Sudan from August 2018 to November 2019 was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative methods. As of 30 November 2019, a total of 107 alerts had been detected in the country out of which 51 (47.7%) met the case definition and were investigated with blood samples collected for laboratory confirmation. Most (81%) of the investigated alerts were South Sudanese nationals. The alerts were identified by health workers (53.1%) at health facilities, at the community (20.4%) and by screeners at the points of entry (12.2%). Most of the investigated alerts were detected from the high-risk states of Gbudwe (46.9%), Jubek (16.3%) and Torit (10.2%). The investigated alerts commonly presented with fever, bleeding, headache and vomiting. The median timeliness for deployment of Rapid Response Team was less than one day and significantly different between the 6-month time periods (K-W = 7.7567; df = 2; p = 0.0024) from 2018 to 2019. Strengths of the alert management system included existence of a dedicated national alert hotline, case definition for alerts and rapid response teams while the weaknesses were occasional inability to access the alert toll-free hotline and lack of transport for deployment of the rapid response teams which often constrain quick response. This study demonstrates that the Ebola virus disease alert management system in South Sudan was fully functional despite the associated challenges and provides evidence to further improve Ebola preparedness in the country.

Background Following the West Africa Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak (2013-2016), WHO developed a preparedness checklist for its member states. This checklist is currently being applied for the first time on a large and systematic scale to prepare for the cross border importation of the ongoing EVD outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo hence the need to document the lessons learnt from this experience. This is more pertinent considering the complex humanitarian context and weak health system under which some of the countries such as the Republic of South Sudan are implementing their EVD preparedness interventions. Main text We identified four main lessons from the ongoing EVD preparedness efforts in the Republic South Sudan. First, EVD preparedness is possible in complex humanitarian settings such as the Republic of South Sudan by using a longer-term health system strengthening approach. Second, the Republic of South Sudan is at risk of both domestic and cross border transmission of EVD and several other infectious disease outbreaks hence the need for an integrated and sustainable approach to outbreak preparedness in the country. Third, a phased and well-prioritized approach is required for EVD preparedness in complex humanitarian settings given the costs associated with preparedness and the difficulties in the accurate prediction of outbreaks in such settings. Fourth, EVD preparedness in complex humanitarian settings is a massive undertaking that requires effective and decentralized coordination. Conclusion Despite a very challenging context, the Republic of South Sudan made significant progress in its EVD preparedness drive demonstrating that it is possible to rapidly scale up preparedness efforts in complex humanitarian contexts if appropriate and context-specific approaches are used. Further research, systematic reviews and evaluation of the ongoing preparedness efforts are required to ensure comprehensive documentation and application of the lessons learnt for future EVD outbreak preparedness and response efforts.