| New academic report identifies pandemic planning weaknesses in European businesses
The report's authors have concluded that the advice on preparedness given to businesses in the non-health sector by European governments and independent organisations, such as consultancy firms, academic bodies and trade unions, is insufficient to ensure that the private sector is equipped to deal with a pandemic. Out of 30 governments surveyed, over a third offered no advice at all and only eight provided significant levels of advice. In addition, much of the guidance in the countries evaluated relies on private consultancies. However, such firms charge fees for their services, which are unaffordable for many businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises. Dr Richard Coker, Reader in Public Health at LSHTM and one of the authors of the report said, "We suggest that public and private advisory organisations take immediate action to develop more comprehensive guidelines. Moreover, guidance should be explicit about corporate social responsibilities and actions should be coherent with corporate strategic goals, operational planning, and national strategies." The report found that advice is lacking and inconsistent in many areas that are crucial to ensure preparedness in case of a pandemic. Only 10 countries provide planning to support human resources and the range of estimates suggests that between 15 – 50 percent of employees will need to take an extra 5 to 14 days sick leave in the event of a pandemic. These unusually high rates of absenteeism will severely disrupt normal activities and put considerable pressure on businesses to remain operational, especially on those operating in essential services such as banking, draining and sewerage, energy communications, water, transport and waste collection. The report conducted a gap analysis of current European pandemic planning advice and identified the following key areas for improvement: Policies and procedures for the management of employees suspected to be ill at work are scarce and non-specific. Most organisations and countries do not take a position or do not provide advice on the issue of general corporate stockpiling of antiviral medication. Recommendations on advance purchasing of antiviral drugs are absent in the independent sector and lacking, in relation to BCP from the government sector. In addition, employers who choose to adopt pharmaceutical measures are not adequately advised on the purchase, storage and distribution of antiviral drugs. No organisations, and only a few countries, clearly advise that business continuity plans should be coherent with national, or WHO pandemic temporal phases. Whilst there is advice on internal communications, guidelines frequently overlook external communications. Legal issues which may arise under the extra-ordinary circumstances of an influenza pandemic are under addressed by most organisations and countries (i.e. the fulfilment of legal obligations towards employees, clients, suppliers and other stakeholders in pandemic time). Guidance related to the acquisition and distribution of personal protection equipment by organisations, outside the public health system, is non-specific and confusing. Whilst some guidelines advocate teleworking, little advice is provided on social distancing measures within the workplace. The advocacy of mechanisms to facilitate sharing of best practices across governments and across industries is lacking. The development of plans to support business recovery after a pandemic is neglected in most guidance. Sandra Mounier-Jack, Lecturer at LSHTM commented, "This report demonstrates that most strategic efforts made so far have been directed at preparing public health systems and as a result the non-health sector has been neglected." "This has the potential to result in unequal levels and inconsistencies of preparedness in the business sector, with important implications for all of Europe," added Alexandra Conseil, Research Fellow at LSHTM. The report was published by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and was written by Dr Richard Coker, Reader in Public Health at LSHTM, Sandra Mounier-Jack, Lecturer at LSHTM and Alexandra Conseil, Research Fellow at LSHTM. The report reviewed the advice offered by 13 independent advisory organisations and that of the governments of the EU-27 countries, as well as Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. The research was undertaken through an unrestricted educational grant from F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. The full text of the report can be found at www.lshtm.ac.uk/ecohost/flupanbcp
•Date: 12th June 2008• Region: UK/Europe •Type: Article •Topic: Pandemic planning
|
