Ebola Virus Training: A Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis

Abstract

In response to the 2014 Ebola virus disease outbreak, the Worker Training Program embarked on an assessment of existing training for those at risk for exposure to the virus. Searches of the recent peer-reviewed literature were conducted for descriptions of relevant training. Federal guidance issued during 2015 was also reviewed. Four stakeholder meetings were conducted with representatives from health care, academia, private industry, and public health to discuss issues associated with ongoing training. Our results revealed few articles about training that provided sufficient detail to serve as models. Training programs struggled to adjust to frequently updated federal guidance. Stakeholders commented that most healthcare training focused solely on infection control, and there was an absence of employee health-related training for non-healthcare providers. Challenges to ongoing training included funding and organizational complacency. Best practices were noted where management and employees planned training cooperatively and where infection control, employee health, and hospital emergency managers worked together on the development of protective guidance. We conclude that sustainable training for infectious disease outbreaks requires annual funding, full support from organizational management, input from all stakeholders, and integration of infection control, emergency management, and employee health when implementing guidance and training.

Educating, training, and exercising for infectious disease control with emphasis on cross-border settings: an integrative review

“…We consider it a strength that, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to assess ETEs in infectious disease control systematically. In addition to previous efforts [ 9 ], we studied evaluations and outcomes with greater detail and with the comprehensive framework we developed, we have contributed to the body of knowledge regarding the performance of systematic reporting and evaluation of ETEs.…”

“…Despite all these efforts, we currently have no insight into the different education, training, and exercises (ETEs) that are carried out on POEs and what their effect is. A literature review in 2017, studying training on infectious disease control, reported that the included studies contained insufficient detail on the methodologies of training and did not report any results [ 9 ]. To employ future efforts (time, costs, intentions) as efficient as possible, we integratively reviewed the available scientific literature [ 10 , 11 ] to identify 1) the different ETE methodologies to train professionals in infectious disease management, 2) how these ETEs are evaluated and 3) what evidence is available for their effectiveness, with a particular attention on cross-border settings, such as POEs.…”

Strengthening health systems in Africa: a case study of the Kenya field epidemiology training program for local frontline health workers

“…KFELTP also followed these guidelines because of the sheer number of public health officers, environmental health officers, and surveillance officers populating Kenya’s public health workforce [ 20 ]. Clinicians, veterinarians, and laboratorians were prioritized because of the leadership roles they serve in their sub-counties regarding field investigations, their interaction with health facility data, monitoring and evaluation responsibilities, management of work teams and programs, and application of policy at the local level [ 21 ].…”

Harmonization of Biosafety and Biosecurity Standards for High-Containment Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: An Approach From the Perspective of Occupational Safety and Health

“…In any designated health facility for collaboration, a variety of frontline experts must work together, observing their own laboratory safety policies. Such circumstance may allow two or more different safety management policies to coexist to regulate tasks and workers at the same time and in the same place, in order thereby to increase the level of complexity (25). Likewise, we often confront technological and procedural conflicts in the application of both local and foreign safety protocols.…”

“…Local experts on the ground may also be confident of their own systems and sometimes blindly do the bidding only of their own authorities, which may, albeit unconsciously, place their collaborators at risk. A similar context in which infection risks are encountered arises particularly at the beginning of a collaboration arrangement: habitual practices and norms based on beliefs, under- or overestimation, or complacency (25) for both local and foreign authorities often present challenges in providing care for patients or managing infectious sample operations in line with their own institutional administration systems. Risks can be significantly increased in the transitional phase of establishing collaborative laboratory investigation mechanisms.…”