https://ojs.wpro.who.int/ 1WPSAR Vol 14, No 1, 2023 | doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2023.14.1.953 Brief Report S ince early 2020, health systems around the world have faced challenges in adequately responding to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Systems have adapted to the evolving epidemic, and different measures have been implemented at different times in different contexts. Evaluating responses to significant public health events such as outbreaks of infectious diseases is often not prioritized or undertaken due to a lack of resources or time, despite its established importance in improving future preparedness and response measures.1–3 Notable examples of evaluations of responses to major infectious disease outbreaks include those for the 2014–20154 Ebola virus disease epidemic in the European Union and the 20135 H1N1 influenza epidemics in Canada and the United States of America. Evaluations have also been conducted for responses to natural disasters, such as the 2017 wildfires in Portugal6 and Hurricane Katrina in the United States in 2005.7 In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed the after-action review (AAR) toolkit as a component of the International Health Regulations (2005; IHR).8–11 AARs aim to assess the what, how and why of a response to a significant public health event, to identify the best practices and challenges encountered during the response, and to propose mid- and long-term actions for improvement. The WHO AAR methods were developed to evaluate responses generally to any type of public health event.11 AARs consist of nine pillars for which best practices, challenges and lessons learned are to be identified: (i) country-level coordination and monitoring, (ii) risk communication, (iii) surveillance, (iv) points of entry, (v) the national laboratory system, (vi) infection prevention and control, (vii) case manage- ment, (viii) operations and logistics and (ix) maintaining health services.11 Conducting and reporting on an AAR requires three steps: (i) objective observation (i.e. a structured review of response activities); (ii) an analysis of gaps, best practices and contributing factors to the results of the response; and (iii) identification of areas for improvement and proposed follow-up actions. WHO suggests four methods that can be used to conduct an AAR: (i) debriefings, (ii) working groups, (iii) interviews with key informants and (iv) mixed-methods studies. Depending on the con- text, AARs can be conducted in different formats and cover different areas of the response. WHO also suggests that the findings of evaluations are compared against the IHR (2005) core capacities.11 Final results should be summarized in a qualitative format, and evaluations by participants contributing to it are encouraged. It is unclear to what extent WHO’s AAR methods are being used to assess public health responses to events involving emerging infectious diseases and, in particular, how closely such evaluations follow WHO guidance. We undertook a rapid review of the global literature with the objective of understanding how the WHO AAR methods are being used to assess public health responses to infec- tious disease events. We searched PubMed using different combinations of keywords such as “after action review”, “infectious disease”, “World Health Organization”, “epidemic”, “outbreak” and “emergency” (Table 1). We also searched a Department of Communicable Diseases Control, National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Viet Nam. b National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia. c The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Published: 22 March 2023 doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2023.14.1.953 After-action reviews for emergency preparedness and response to infectious disease outbreaks Ha-Linh Quach,a,b Khanh Cong Nguyena and Florian Vogtb,c Correspondence to Ha-Linh Quach (email: u7061726@alumni.anu.edu.au) WPSAR Vol 14, No 1, 2023 | doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2023.14.1.953 https://ojs.wpro.who.int/2 Quach et alA rapid review of after-action reviews methodology Three AARs13–15 used WHO-recommended meth- ods in combination with other evaluation tools, such as document reviews or surveys in addition to quantitative assessments. The remaining five16–20 strictly followed WHO’s nine evaluation pillars and three steps, and were conducted as conferences that brought together all stakeholders. Four of the eight reports used working groups,16–19 three used debriefings13–15 and one used key-informant interviews,20 following WHO’s AAR ready- to-use toolkits. Public health systems were a common focus of evaluations, appearing in seven AARs,13–19 while another AAR focused on a hospital setting.20 Five AARs were conducted at the local level in response to outbreaks13–15,19,20 and three at the national level.16–18 Three AARs included participants’ evaluations of and feedback on the AAR method.17–19 Although the overall assessment of the suitability of AARs to connect stake- holders, provide a platform for ideas and to pool experi- ences was positive, as evidenced by responses from more than 80% of participants in each of these three studies, only half of the participants agreed that AARs actually achieved their objectives.17–19 In terms of strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination, less than 20% of participants in these studies rated this as being accomplished by the AAR.17–19 Additionally, the impor- the WHO Strategic Partnership for Health Security and Emergency Preparedness’ After Action Review data- base,12 WHO’s main public repository for AARs. We included all articles and reports in English published or uploaded from January 2015 to December 2021 that de- scribed using WHO AAR methods to evaluate responses to infectious disease outbreaks. Reports or publications were excluded if they were incomplete, did not use the WHO AAR toolkit, were not published in English or did not evaluate infectious disease events. Results were merged, duplicates removed and the remaining reports screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and reasons for exclusion were documented. For the included reports, we extracted the key characteristics of the AAR method for use in a descrip- tive analysis. We also assessed how closely the included AARs followed the WHO AAR methods and how effec- tive the methods were in assessing the response. The following data were extracted from each record: general information, including authors and year of publication; setting; scope of evaluation (national, regional or agency level); the event being evaluated; and the year of the event. The reports were then compared against WHO’s AAR guideline (Table 2). After screening 86 records, 8 were included in the analysis, 4 from the WHO AAR database and 4 peer-reviewed articles retrieved from PubMed (Fig. 1, Table 3). Table 1. Search terms used and number of records retrieved from PubMed for study of after-action reviews that use WHO criteria, 2015–2021 Search Fields searched Query (filter: English) No. of records 1 All after action review 49 2 All infectious disease 677 493 3 All epidemic OR outbreak OR emergency 549 053 4 All World Health Organization 98 489 5 All infectious disease OR epidemic OR outbreak OR emergency (searches 2 and 3 combined) 1 176 137 6 All after action review AND infectious disease OR epidemic OR outbreak OR emergency (searches 1 and 5 combined) 20 7 All after action review AND World Health Organization (searches 1 and 4 combined) 4 8 All after action review AND infectious disease OR epidemic OR outbreak OR emergency OR after action review AND World Health Organization (searches 6 and 7 combined) 22 9 Date of publication (2015[Date - Publication]: 2021[Date - Publication]) 8 222 679 10 All after action review AND infectious disease OR epidemic OR outbreak OR emergency OR after action review AND World Health Organization AND (2015[Date - Publication]: 2021[Date - Publication]) (searches 8 and 9 combined) 16 WPSAR Vol 14, No 1, 2023 | doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2023.14.1.953https://ojs.wpro.who.int/ 3 A rapid review of after-action reviews methodologyQuach et al From the completed reports, it is evident that WHO’s methods were not always strictly followed, but they were often used in combination with other meth- ods for qualitative and quantitative assessment. While the qualitative element of WHO’s AAR toolkit seems to have been easier to follow in conference settings with all relevant stakeholders present, several AARs required methodological modifications, using, for example, surveys or document reviews, and also incorporated quantitative methods, depending on the local context. One of WHO’s main recommendations for conducting AARs is to com- pare the outcomes of the response with the IHR (2005) core capacities – a country-level assessment – yet this comparison was not done in any of the studies included in our analysis. WHO’s AAR methodology is relatively broad and geared towards whole-of-system evaluations. The nine AAR evaluation pillars and the accompanying toolkit are also rather general. As a result, AARs were more fre- quently used for evaluations of district- and national-level systems rather than for specific systems (e.g. surveil- lance systems, national laboratories or point-of-entry screening). However, assessments should be conducted for all levels and aspects of health systems to ensure a comprehensive response; therefore, AAR toolkits should tance of allowing AAR methods to be adjusted to best fit their purposes (e.g. for smaller-level analyses, such as within a unit, region or single institution) is highlighted by the fact that three of the eight reports did not strictly follow WHO’s AAR structure.13–15 The importance of making modifications to conduct a more focused system evaluation was also flagged by Sorbello et al.20 as a way to improve follow-up actions within local contexts and to enhance multidisciplinary cooperation. Despite being recommended by WHO, none of the AARs used the IHR (2005) core capacities as a comparator. Only a limited number of AARs have been published in the scientific and grey literature. As of August 2022, the global public repository for AARs at WHO12 listed 81 entries since 2016. However, 66 (88%) of the 75 entries categorized as having been conducted were incomplete, of which 41 were older than 2 years and hence are un- likely to ever be finalized. Furthermore, many entries had only minimal information about the setting and category of emergency, and were without much content about the AAR itself. It was also often difficult to establish whether an AAR had actually been conducted and completed successfully. The problem of identifying and accessing information about AARs has also been recognized in a recent review from Australia.21 Table 2. Data extracted from reports of after-action reviews that use WHO criteria, 2015–2021 Data extracted Variable Format WHO guideline: debriefing, working group, key-informant interviews or mixed-methods study Other Pillar of evaluation WHO guideline: (i) country-level coordination and monitoring; (ii) risk communication; (iii) surveillance; (iv) points of entry; (v) the national laboratory system; (vi) infection prevention and control; (vii) case management; (viii) operations and logistics; and (ix) maintaining health services Other Phases of evaluation WHO guideline: design, preparation and implementation Other Comparison with International Health Regulations (2005) core capacities WHO guideline: Yes No Final evaluation by participants WHO guideline: Yes No Reporting format WHO guideline: qualitative format with three-part structure: (i) objective observation (i.e. a structured review of response activities); (ii) analysis of gaps, best practices and contributing factors to the results of the response; (iii) identification of areas for improvement and proposals for follow-up actions Other Follow-up plan for improvement WHO guideline: Yes No WPSAR Vol 14, No 1, 2023 | doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2023.14.1.953 https://ojs.wpro.who.int/4 Quach et alA rapid review of after-action reviews methodology Table 3. Summary of articles and reports included in the study of after-action reviews that use WHO criteria, 2015–2021 Author (year) Publication type Setting Scope of evaluation Event under evaluation (year) Evaluation approaches Areas being evaluated Application of WHO AAR methodology Mase et al. (2017)13 Peer- reviewed journal article Ohio, USA Public health departments H1N1 influenza mass vaccination campaign (2017) Document review Debriefings Questionaire survey (1) Mass vaccination (2) Volunteer management (3) Community mitigation (4) Interoperable communica- tions (5) Risk communica- tion (6) Epidemiological surveillance and investigation £ Followed AAR structure S Followed AAR pillars for evaluation (focus on vaccination) S Followed AAR approaches (in combination) £ Comparison with IHR (2005) S Followed AAR qualitative reporting format £ Final evaluation from participants Tapo et al. (2021)14 Peer- reviewed journal article Vanuatu International health centre COVID-19 epidemic (2020) Document review Debriefing (1) Coordination and staffing (2) Pre-arrival preparations (3) Pre-departure preparations (point of origin) (4) Upon arrival at the airport in Vanuatu (5) Check in to quarantine facilities (6) During quarantine (7) Quarantine discharge £ Followed AAR structure S Followed AAR pillars for evaluation (focus on point of entry) S Followed AAR approaches (in combination) £ Comparison with IHR (2005) S Followed AAR qualitative reporting format £ Final evaluation from participants Boland et al. (2017)15 Peer- reviewed journal article Sierra Leone District health sys- tem, Port Loko district and Kambia district Ebola virus disease outbreak (2014–2017) Document review Debriefing Question- naire survey (1) Environment and infrastruc- ture (2) Sociocultural aspects (3) Political and organizational aspects £ Followed AAR structure £ Followed AAR pillars for evaluation S Followed AAR approaches (in combination) £ Comparison with IHR (2005) S Followed AAR qualitative reporting format (in combination with quantitative report) £ Final evaluation from participants WPSAR Vol 14, No 1, 2023 | doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2023.14.1.953https://ojs.wpro.who.int/ 5 A rapid review of after-action reviews methodologyQuach et al Author (year) Publication type Setting Scope of evaluation Event under evaluation (year) Evaluation approaches Areas being evaluated Application of WHO AAR methodology Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and WHO (2017)16 Non-peer- reviewed report Nigeria National public health system Lassa fever outbreak (2016–2017) Working groups (1) Coordination (2) Epidemiological surveillance (3) Case management and infection prevention and control (4) National laboratory system (5) Logistics (6) Risk communication S Followed AAR structure S Followed AAR pillars for evaluation S Followed AAR approaches £ Comparison with IHR (2005) S Followed AAR qualitative re- porting format £ Final evaluation from participants Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and WHO (2018)17 Non-peer- reviewed report Nigeria National public health system Lassa fever outbreak (2018) Working groups (1) Coordination and logistics (2) Case management, safe burial, and infection prevention and control (3) Risk com- munication and social mobilization (4) National labo- ratory system (5) Epidemiologi- cal surveil- lance S Followed AAR structure S Followed AAR pillars for evaluation S Followed AAR approaches £ Comparison with IHR (2005) S Followed AAR qualitative reporting format S Final evaluation from participants Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and WHO (2018)18 Non-peer- reviewed report Nigeria National public health system National cerebrospinal meningitis outbreak (2017–2018) Working groups (1) Coordination (2) Epidemiologi- cal surveillance (3) Case management (4) Risk com- munication and social mobilization (5) National laboratory system (6) Logistics for vaccination S Followed AAR structure S Followed AAR pillars for evaluation S Followed AAR approaches £ Comparison with IHR (2005) S Followed AAR qualitative reporting format S Final evaluation from participants WPSAR Vol 14, No 1, 2023 | doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2023.14.1.953 https://ojs.wpro.who.int/6 Quach et alA rapid review of after-action reviews methodology WHO issued a modified version of its methods for AARs at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, known as intra-action reviews (IARs), to meet the need to rapidly assess health systems’ performance during the ongoing pandemic. As of August 2022, there were 144 IARs listed in the WHO database;22 129 of them (89.6%) were categorized as conducted, but only 19 of these (14.7%) were accompanied by a completed report, suggesting there are issues in finalization and publication similar to those for AARs. IARs include four additional pil- lars that are relevant to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: (i) COVID-19 vaccination, (ii) vulnerable and marginalized populations, (iii) national legislation and financing, and (iv) public health and social measures.23 However, only two be flexible enough to be adapted to different jurisdictions and scopes of assessment to accommodate diverse evaluation needs. Thus, modifications to WHO’s AAR guidance are important to ensure that relevant informa- tion can be gathered from a wider range of sources and a more diverse group of stakeholders to fully consider local contexts and different scopes of evaluation. Furthermore, understanding IHR (2005) core capacities could offer important lessons for conducting AARs. However, com- parison against IHR (2005) core capacities is rarely done as part of AARs despite being encouraged by WHO. We also found that several AARs in the WHO repository were implemented without assessments from participants and stakeholders. Author (year) Publication type Setting Scope of evaluation Event under evaluation (year) Evaluation approaches Areas being evaluated Application of WHO AAR methodology Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and WHO (2018)19 Non-peer- reviewed report Nigeria Public health system, Maiduguri Borno state Cholera outbreak in camp for displaced people (2017) Working groups (1) Coordination and logistics (2) Epidemiolo- gical surveillance and the na- tional laboratory system (3) Case manage- ment, and infection prevention and control (4) Risk com- munication and community engagement (5) Water, sanitation and hygiene (6) Oral cholera vaccination S Followed AAR structure S Followed AAR pillars for evaluation S Followed AAR approaches £ Comparison with IHR (2005) S Followed AAR qualitative reporting format S Final evaluation from participants Sorbello et al. (2021)20 Peer-reviewed journal article Italy Hospital of San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan COVID-19 epidemic (2020) Key- informant interviews (1) Staff management (2) Logistics and supplies (3) COVID-19 diagnosis and clinical management (4) Risk communication S Followed AAR structure S Followed AAR pillars for evaluation (modified to quantitative ranking of effectiveness) S Followed AAR approaches £ Comparison with IHR (2005) £ Followed AAR qualitative reporting format S Final evaluation from participants AAR: after-action review; IHR: International Health Regulations; WHO: World Health Organization. WPSAR Vol 14, No 1, 2023 | doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2023.14.1.953https://ojs.wpro.who.int/ 7 A rapid review of after-action reviews methodologyQuach et al of AARs, which hindered our ability to obtain sufficient information about their reflections on the suitability of the AAR method to achieve its objectives. All of these constraints could be resolved through more stringent reporting requirements for AARs. Unfortunately, there is no formal requirement to report on and publish AARs upon completion or to finalize reports in a timely manner. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, as more and more health systems need up-to-date data on effective and ineffective measures for addressing the pandemic, it is important to disseminate these evaluations widely and rapidly to ensure that incremental and strategic im- provements are made to health-care systems worldwide. However, it seems that COVD-19-specific IARs suffer from the same issues as AARs in terms of insufficient conclusions and lack of publication of reviews. It is crucial to evaluate public health systems regularly during a prolonged and evolving event such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Selecting appropriate methods for these evaluations is important to their successful implementation and to ultimately improve and adapt responses to the pandemic. Considering the variability of the COVID-19 pandemic and countries’ public health capacities, a global methodology such as WHO’s AAR toolkit needs to be sufficiently adaptable to local contexts and priorities, and also able to gain the most value from stakeholders’ practical experiences during the response. The COVID-19-specific IAR adaptation of the AAR is a laudable example of this type of approach, and future pandemics might require similar adaptations. Furthermore, more subnational reviews, which have been proposed in the latest version of the IAR, are needed to enable better operational analysis of public health responses in specific high-priority areas. Importantly, the reporting and publication of completed AARs should be strengthened to allow public health responders and researchers from other countries and settings to benefit from the knowledge generated and lessons learned to strengthen the capacities of health-care systems to respond to future health emergencies.23 Conflicts of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Ethics statement Not applicable. IARs categorized as conducted in the database included information about COVID-19 vaccination, and none of the IARs provided information about the other three pillars. Therefore, it is unclear whether IARs have contributed to improving evaluations of health system responses. The IAR adaptation of the AAR remains relatively broad and geared towards national-level responses. Similar to AARs, we believe that IARs would greatly benefit from regular evaluation of the methodology itself to better guide and prepare countries and health-care systems for future, protracted health emergencies beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.23 We acknowledge several limitations to our work. First, the small number of included records did not al- low for strong conclusions. Second, there were many AARs listed in the WHO repository that did not have a completed report, which again led to only a small num- ber of records being included in our study and possible publication bias in our assessment. Third, the range of countries with completed AARs was limited and quite focused on WHO’s African Region, which restricts the generalizability of our findings. Fourth, less than half of the included studies reported on participants’ evaluations Fig. 1. Flow chart of studies and reports retrieved from PubMed for assessment of after-action reviews that use WHO criteria, 2015–2021 73 reports from WHO’s database 16 articles from PubMed 89 records included for screening 0 duplicates removed 89 records screened 8 articles included Records excluded 9 3 4 61 4 due to wrong focus (not infectious diseases) due to wrong study design not in English incomplete not conducted WPSAR Vol 14, No 1, 2023 | doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2023.14.1.953 https://ojs.wpro.who.int/8 Quach et alA rapid review of after-action reviews methodology 12. After action review (AAR) [online database]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Available from: https://extranet.who.int/sph/ after-action-review, accessed 2 September 2022. 13. Mase WA, Bickford B, Thomas CL, Jones SD, Bisesi M. After- action review of the 2009–10 H1N1 influenza outbreak re- sponse: Ohio’s public health system’s performance. J Emerg Manag. 2017;15(5):325–34. doi:10.5055/jem.2017.0340 pmid:29165783 14. Tapo PS, Knox TB, van Gemert-Doyle C, Manwo O, Iavro E, Williams W, et al. Lessons from COVID-19-free Vanuatu: intensive health opera- tions for phase 1 of repatriation and quarantine, May–July 2020. Western Pac Surveill Response J. 2021;12(1):61–8. doi:10.5365/ wpsar.2020.11.4.004 pmid:34094627 15. Boland ST, Polich E, Connolly A, Hoar A, Sesay T, Tran AA. Over- coming operational challenges to Ebola case investigation in Sierra Leone. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017;5(3):456–67. doi:10.9745/ GHSP-D-17-00126 pmid:28751468 16. 2016/2017 Lassa fever outbreak: after action review, 21–22 August 2017. Abuja: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control; 2017. Avail- able from: https://extranet.who.int/sph/sites/default/files/%28EN- Nigeria%29%20-%20Lassa%20Fever%20AAR_2017.pdf, ac- cessed 1 December 2022. 17. 2018 Lassa fever outbreak: after action review, 5–7 June 2018. Abuja: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control; 2018. Available from: https://extranet.who.int/sph/sites/default/files/document-library/ document/AAR%20Lassa%20Fever%20Nigeria%20%285-7%20 June%202018%29.pdf, accessed 1 December 2022. 18. Report of the national 2017/2018 cerebrospinal meningitis outbreak response: after action review meeting, 13th–15th August, 2018. Abuja: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control; 2018. Available from: https://extranet.who.int/sph/sites/default/files/document-library/ document/AAR%20Meningitis%20Nigeria%20%2813-15%20 Aug%202018%29.pdf, accessed 1 December 2022. 19. After action review for cholera, Maiduguri Borno State, Nigeria. Abuja: Nigeria Centre for Disease Control; 2018. Available from: https://extranet.who.int/sph/sites/default/files/document-library/ document /A AR%20Cholera%20Nigeria%20%2829-31%20 May%202018%29.pdf, accessed 1 December 2022. 20. Sorbello S, Bossi E, Zandalasini C, Carioli G, Signorelli C, Ciceri F, et al. After action reviews of COVID-19 response: case study of a large tertiary care hospital in Italy. 2021;36(5):1758–71. doi:10.1002/ hpm.3258 pmid:34096091 21. Dalton CB, Kirk MD, Durrheim DN. Using after-action reviews of outbreaks to enhance public health responses: lessons for COV- ID-19. Med J Aust. 2022;216(1):4–9. doi:10.5694/mja2.51289 pmid:34554574 22. Intra-action review (IAR) [online database]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Available from: https://extranet.who.int/sph/ intra-action-review, accessed 31 August 2022. 23. Guidance for conducting a country COVID-19 intra-action review (IAR), 23 July 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/333419, accessed 31 August 2022. Funding None. References 1. Alwan NA. Surveillance is underestimating the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet. 2020;396(10252):e24. doi:10.1016/ S0140-6736(20)31823-7 pmid:32861312 2. Williams I, Essue B, Nouvet E, Sandman L, Razavi SD, Noorul- huda M, et al. Priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: going beyond vaccines. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(1):e004686. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004686 pmid:33461979 3. Public health surveillance for COVID-19: interim guidance, 22 July 2022. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/360580, accessed 1 De- cember 2022. 4. Stoto MA, Nelson C, Hidgon MA, Kraemer J, Singleton CM. Learn- ing about after action reporting from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: a workshop summary. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2013;19(5):420– 7. doi:10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182751d57 pmid:23518591 5. Masotti P, Green ME, Birtwhistle R, Gemmill I, Moore K, O’Connor K, et al. pH1N1 – a comparative analysis of public health respons- es in Ontario to the influenza outbreak, public health and pri- mary care: lessons learned and policy suggestions. BMC Pub- lic Health. 2013;13:687. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-687 pmid:23890226 6. Stoto MA, Nelson C, Piltch-Loeb R, Mayigane LN, Copper F, Chungong S. Getting the most from after action reviews to improve global health security. Global Health. 2019;15(1):58. doi:10.1186/ s12992-019-0500-z pmid:31601233 7. Miller H, McNamara J, Jui J. Hurricane Katrina (OR-2 DMAT) af- ter action report: New Orleans airport, August 31–September 10, 2005. Washington (DC): Homeland Security Digital Library; 2005. Available from: https://www.hsdl.org/c/abstract/?docid=766144, accessed 1 December 2022. 8. International Health Regulations (2005): IHR monitoring and evalu- ation framework. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Avail- able from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/276651, ac- cessed 1 December 2022. 9. Country implementation guidance: after action reviews and simu- lation exercises under the International Health Regulations 2005 monitoring and evaluation framework (IHR MEF). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Available from: https://apps.who.int/ iris/handle/10665/276175, accessed 1 December 2022. 10. The recommendations of the Review Committee on Second Exten- sions for Establishing National Public Health Capacities and on IHR implementation. Geneva: World Health Assembly; 2015. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/253234, accessed 1 December 2022. 11. Guidance for after action review (AAR). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/han- dle/10665/311537, accessed 21 May 2021. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/276175 https://extranet.who.int/sph/after-action-review https://extranet.who.int/sph/sites/default/files/document-library/document/AAR%20Lassa%20Fever%20Nigeria%20%285-7%20June%202018%29.pdf https://extranet.who.int/sph/sites/default/files/document-library/document/AAR%20Meningitis%20Nigeria%20%2813-15%20Aug%202018%29.pdf https://extranet.who.int/sph/sites/default/files/document-library/document /AAR%20Cholera%20Nigeria%20%2829-31%20May%202018%29.pdf https://extranet.who.int/sph/intra-action-review