No abstract

Digitalisation offers great potential to improve vaccine uptake, supporting the need for effective life-course immunisation services. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with public health experts from 10 Western European countries (Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom) to assess the current level of digitalisation in immunisation programmes and retrieve data on interventions and best practices. Interviews were performed using an ad hoc questionnaire, piloted on a sample of national experts. We report a mixed level of digital technologies deployment within vaccination services across Europe: Some countries are currently developing eHealth strategies, while others have already put in place robust programmes. Institutional websites, educational videos, and electronic immunisation records are the most frequently adopted digital tools. Webinars and dashboards represent valuable resources to train and support healthcare professionals in immunisation services organisation. Text messages, email-based communication, and smartphone apps use is scattered across Europe. The main reported barrier to the implementation of digital-based programmes is the lack of resources and shared standards. Our study offers a comprehensive picture of the European context and shows the need for robust collaboration between states and international institutions to share best practices and inform the planning of digital intervention models with the aim of countering vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccine uptake.

Background After‐Action Reviews (AARs) are management tools used to evaluate the response to public health emergencies at the national and subnational level. Aim of this study is to apply available AAR models to assess and critically appraise COVID‐19 response of San Raffaele Scientific Institute, a large university hospital in Milan, Italy. Methods We designed an AAR based on the key‐informant interview format, following the methodology proposed by the 2019 World Health Organization Guidance for AAR. After systematic assessment of the hospital reorganization, we conducted 36 semi‐structured interviews to professionals with executive, clinical, technical and administrative roles. We designed an ad‐hoc questionnaire exploring four areas: (i) staff management; (ii) logistics and supplies; (iii) COVID‐19 diagnosis and clinical management; (iv) communication. Results Overall, the hospital response was evaluated as effective and sufficiently prompt. Participants stressed the relevance of: (i) strong governance and coordination; (ii) readiness and availability of healthcare personnel; (iii) definition of a model of care based on a multidisciplinary approach. Challenges were reported for communication management and staff training. Conclusions This study is one of the first applications of the AAR to the COVID‐19 response in hospital settings, which can be successfully adapted or scaled up to other settings in order to implement preparedness strategies for future public health emergencies.