A Multi-Method Approach to Curriculum Development for In-Service Training in China’s Newly Established Health Emergency Response Offices

Abstract

ObjectiveTo describe an innovative approach for developing and implementing an in-service curriculum in China for staff of the newly established health emergency response offices (HEROs), and that is generalisable to other settings.MethodsThe multi-method training needs assessment included reviews of the competency domains needed to implement the International Health Regulations (2005) as well as China’s policies and emergency regulations. The review, iterative interviews and workshops with experts in government, academia, the military, and with HERO staff were reviewed critically by an expert technical advisory panel.FindingsOver 1600 participants contributed to curriculum development. Of the 18 competency domains identified as essential for HERO staff, nine were developed into priority in-service training modules to be conducted over 2.5 weeks. Experts from academia and experienced practitioners prepared and delivered each module through lectures followed by interactive problem-solving exercises and desktop simulations to help trainees apply, experiment with, and consolidate newly acquired knowledge and skills.ConclusionThis study adds to the emerging literature on China’s enduring efforts to strengthen its emergency response capabilities since the outbreak of SARS in 2003. The multi-method approach to curriculum development in partnership with senior policy-makers, researchers, and experienced practitioners can be applied in other settings to ensure training is responsive and customized to local needs, resources and priorities. Ongoing curriculum development should reflect international standards and be coupled with the development of appropriate performance support systems at the workplace for motivating staff to apply their newly acquired knowledge and skills effectively and creatively.

Lessons learnt from implementation of the International Health Regulations: a systematic review

“…Establishing roles, responsibilities and terms of reference of national focal points within national legislation, and disseminating information inside government, to national stakeholders, and to WHO, improves coordination and communication. 27 , 51 , 74 …”

“…epidemiology, problem-solving, management and leadership, technical expertise in pandemic and epidemic diseases). 54 , 61 , 74 …”

“…Ensuring flexible systems can improve response to known epidemics and detection of new threats. 29 , 70 , 74 …”

“…A total of 33 articles from 60 countries reported experience implementing the national legislation, policy and financing core capacity. 27 , 29 – 31 , 34 – 41 , 44 , 47 , 50 – 54 , 56 , 57 , 59 – 61 , 64 , 66 , 68 , 70 – 74 In Cambodia, India and Uganda, the need to develop basic health-system functions (e.g. expanding access to health services that are essential for treating patients and for disease surveillance) had to be balanced against the commitment to meeting IHR (2005) requirements.…”

“…Experience implementing the response core capacity was reported by 27 articles from 47 countries. 26 – 36 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 51 – 54 , 56 , 60 , 62 , 68 , 71 , 73 , 74 Experience from the Republic of Moldova reinforced the importance of interdisciplinary rapid response teams (e.g. epidemiologists, microbiologists, hygienists, environmental health professionals and laboratory technicians).…”