Getting the most from after action reviews to improve global health security

Abstract

Background After Action Reviews (AARs) provide a means to observe how well preparedness systems perform in real world conditions and can help to identify – and address – gaps in national and global public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) systems. WHO has recently published guidance for voluntary AARs. This analysis builds on this guidance by reviewing evidence on the effectiveness of AARs as tools for system improvement and by summarizing some key lessons about ensuring that AARs result in meaningful learning from experience. Results Empirical evidence from a variety of fields suggests that AARs hold considerable promise as tools of system improvement for PHEP. Our review of the literature and practical experience demonstrates that AARs are most likely to result in meaningful learning if they focus on incidents that are selected for their learning value, involve an appropriately broad range of perspectives, are conducted with appropriate time for reflection, employ systems frameworks and rigorous tools such as facilitated lookbacks and root cause analysis, and strike a balance between attention to incident specifics vs. generalizable capacities and capabilities. Conclusions Employing these practices requires a PHEP system that facilitates the preparation of insightful AARs, and more generally rewards learning. The barriers to AARs fall into two categories: concerns about the cultural sensitivity and context, liability, the political response, and national security; and constraints on staff time and the lack of experience and the requisite analytical skills. Ensuring that AARs fulfill their promise as tools of system improvement will require ongoing investment and a change in mindset. The first step should be to clarify that the goal of AARs is organizational learning, not placing blame or punishing poor performance. Based on experience in other fields, the buy-in of agency and political leadership is critical in this regard. National public health systems also need support in the form of toolkits, guides, and training, as well as research on AAR methods. An AAR registry could support organizational improvement through careful post-event analysis of systems’ own events, facilitate identification and sharing of best practices across jurisdictions, and enable cross-case analyses.

Facing the Pandemic: The Italian Experience From Health Management Experts’ Perspective

“…The disease marched relentlessly westward until the WHO stated that Europe was the center of the pandemic (March 13, 2020). However, the possibility of a global pandemic had already been flagged by the WHO (Stoto et al, 2019).…”

Five-year Psychosocial Impact of Living in Post-Disaster Prefabricated Temporary Housing

“…Nonetheless, the analysis offered by an AAR is critical to future risk mitigation. 18 Oftentimes, organizations experience a disconnect between the observation of challenges and the implementation of solutions, even when specifically suggested in after action reports. 19 Those reports can better guide institutional change if formalized procedures are developed to guide improvement efforts.…”

Addressing the double burden of the COVID-19 and noncommunicable disease pandemics: a new global governance challenge

“…After Action Reviews provide experiential learning opportunities and document both successes and failures, ensuring improved performance during future responses. The After Action Reviews have recently been included in the IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to facilitate the sharing of best practices (Stoto et al, 2019).…”