Session 1.5: Health Policy and Coordination: A Critical Review of Experiences

Abstract

This is a summary of the presentations and discussion of Session 1.5 on Health Policy and Coordination: A Critical Review of Experiences during the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened bythe World Health Organization (WHO) in Phuket, Thailand, 04–06 May 2005. The topics discussed included issues related to health policy and coordination as pertain to the responses to the damage created by the Tsunami. Key questions were answered in this session, and recommendations were made.

Enhancing Collaboration during Humanitarian Response: An Interim Report from Stakeholders Survey

“…For example, poor coordination among responding organizations has been described as the "main problem" hindering relief efforts after the 2004 Tsunami in Indonesia, though the overall degree of coordination is credited as an improvement over previous large-scale relief efforts. 2,7 In September 2006, as part of the multilateral Humanitarian Health Conference convened by Dartmouth Medical School and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative to focus on specific challenges in humanitarian relief, representatives from numerous agencies formed a Working Group to review the evidence base associated with coordination, as well as the needs and possibilities for enhancing coordination. Additionally, the Working Group explored the advantages and disadvantages of creating a new consortium of health-related humanitarian agencies that would develop ongoing mechanisms for collaborative action.…”

“…5-8 Coordination during ongoing recovery and reconstruction stages, may be even more challenging than during initial relief phases. 2,9,10 The benefits that have been demonstrated by joint action at all levels of humanitarian relief (field, headquarters, United Nations) and by all actors (implementing, governmental, donors, technical) have been substantial. The collaborative work of the Sphere Project, WASH, the CORE group, and SMART all were named as significant contributors to recent improvements in the type of professional standards necessary to increase coordination, effectiveness, and efficiency during response efforts.…”

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part III: Framework for the Temporal Phases of Disasters

“…[11][12][13] Examples of essential pre-event information include descriptions of existing infrastructure, known hazards, the characteristics of the hazard responsible for the event, and a profile of the affected population, including its health status, culture, economy, and security. However, such data/information often are/is difficult and expensive to acquire, and knowledge of the preevent status may not be available during a crisis.…”

“…Furthermore, the pre-event status of a community/society affected by a prolonged disaster may be more difficult to ascertain than that affected by a sudden, high-intensity onset, short-duration event. For example, the damages from the extensive floods that blanketed parts of Pakistan in 2010 could not be determined due to a lack of baseline information 14 . Determining which point of reference to use to describe the pre-event status may be difficult.…”

“…Ideally, an inventory of the pre-event status of a disasteraffected community is determined prior to the onset of an event, and the information is readily available to the teams performing assessments of Structural and Functional Damages that resulted from the event. [11][12][13] Examples of essential pre-event information include descriptions of existing infrastructure, known hazards, the characteristics of the hazard responsible for the event, and a profile of the affected population, including its health status, culture, economy, and security. However, such data/information often are/is difficult and expensive to acquire, and knowledge of the preevent status may not be available during a crisis.…”