POST 00595E : SUGGESTIONS FOR THE MEETING AGENDA Follow-up on Posts 00574E, 00584E, 00587E and 00591E 23 August 2003 __________________________________________ NOTE : VIRUS ALERT Most of you are likely aware by now of the massive virus attack on e-mail systems across the world by the "Sobig" virus. We believe that all of you are very careful when dealing with suspicious attachments. Nevertheless we ask you to be especially attentive. Apparently the worst is behind us but.... Listservs were prime targets and our managers were very active this week to make sure that no damage were to be done. This posting was delayed a little for that reason and list owners were informed yesterday that it is safe. To be on the safer side, please note that this posting contains NO attachment. __________________________________________ The forthcoming Technet meeting is generating lots of ideas and discussions. Here are three more contributions. The first is from Alasdair Wylie (mailto:[log in to unmask]). Then John Lloyd (mailto:[log in to unmask]) reports on a discussion between Gordon Larsen, Alasdair Wylie and himself. Michel Zaffran (mailto:[log in to unmask]) comments on this discussion __________________________________________ Principles: The meeting should a) reflect continuity, linking to and building on the Delhi meeting; b) be focused on some main global immunization programme developments and activities since 2000/01 (the biggest period of change since "Universal Child Immunization" took off in the mid1980s), in all cases with particular emphasis on vaccine logistic management aspects, needs, planning and experience; c) focus on field experience , lessons and issues. Content Continuity: review the output of Delhi meeting and objectives decided then and discuss/assess what has happened since. This would include both the objectives shown on the website regarding working groups, Technet e-forum and mechanisms to work with GAVI, and whatever specific technical or activity outputs and recommendations are in the Delhi meeting report. Main programme developments: would suggest three areas: 1. New Vaccine Introduction (NVI) : unprecedented amount of new experience in vaccine logistics. 2. SIAs/campaigns: apart from Polio and Measles SIAs (presumably still things to share and learn), both MNT Elimination (some 20 countries doing TT campaigns in 02/03) and Meningitis campaigns have come on the scene. 3. "Reach every district" (RED): Opportunity to focus fresh on the key district and subdistrict level vaccine logistic criteria, needs, tools and experience Some of the priority technical/functional issues which have already been proposed and which clearly need to have time in the meeting could be taken up under one or other of the above if felt appropriate, although all do cut across, e.g. (these being my "top 4" - avoiding vaccine freezing NVI - waste management especially Small Scale Incineration issues SI - monitoring tools/products status and issues RED (VAR, VVM, FW, new ones) - training related issues especially focusing on procedures for training needs assessment; ensuring consistent logistics/technical content in new/revised materials; and training (impact) evaluation. Links and relationships Apart from the issue of mechanisms to work with GAVI and the Implementation Task Force, there also needs to be time to consult on/discuss a relationship with the Technology Operations Panel and in particular the ambitions which the TOP has to use field staff (with, presumed, appropriate involvement of regional offices) for operations research and studies, with the implications for both time management and resource requirements which this involves. I believe that the approach needed for all of the above requires a combination of plenary and working group time within the meeting, with time for groups to report back to plenary and for drafting and discussing conclusions and recommendations - the basis for a report - during the meeting. The Copenhagen 1998 Technet meeting, in its planning and implementation, is probably the best example so far of such an approach in practice. Given the list of significant programme and technical subjects since 2001 which a meeting later this year should include, and the relative infrequency of the global Technet meeting, I feel that a five day meeting is justified and required. Alasdair Wylie Geneva 3 August ______________________________________ Gordon and Alasdair and I got together over lunch yesterday to discuss the TECHNET meeting, and Technet generally. These were our thoughts if they can be of any help. First, we think that Technet is just as important as it has always been as a channel between field-based immunization partners - and people who make decisions on technologies and operations at global level which strongly affect field operations. The Technet 'channel' should be used in three ways to act as a 'broader bottom' to our ambitions for the TOP: 1) As an annual review meeting with three functions: - update on technical issues (plenary?) - review of problems/issues and policies to deal with them (plenary and group work) - develop action plans for fieldwork and global work (group work) 2) As an email forum to transparently and inclusively discuss technical and controversial issues - any chance to review quality, direction, utilization? 3) As a human resource from which to build teams: - to participate in work driven by one partner - to coordinate work done by multiple partners Second, in-spite of the de-emphasizing of technologies suggested (by me at the 1999 Technet meeting, we think that the business of Technet ought to be targeted at systems for service delivery and service support which are affected by and which affect the technologies used. This target is potentially so broad that the annual meeting of 2-3 days has to be focused. The focus issues are likely to match those of the TOP, bringing the debate of the TOP into a broader group. My vote for the focus is below, but I expect there are many other views: 1) PIS to PQS 2) Freeze avoidance policy and technologies 3) Temperature monitoring devices (towards new standards) 4) EVSM move towards certification 5) Sharps waste management Third, perhaps we could make working/steering teams around these 5 issues, and drawing for each team from Technet members from different regions participating in the next Technet meeting. That way we could use these groups as working-groups for the meeting? Then we could have the team leader continue to involve the group through the year. I must say, I felt dÃ©ja-vu as we spoke, but the critical factor in getting more participation in Technet activities will be to get recognition from the various parent organisations for what we are trying to achieve and financing for operations research and training and capacity building in the countries. Looking forward to having a chance to discuss with you maybe mid August? All the best, John _______________________________________________ These are excellent thoughts- Thanks for sharing them with us. I suggest we use your structure (3 different points) to anchor a broader discussion. My comments are below: First : I do not really see how the three ways to use the TechNet Channel vary from what we have at the moment and what we have had over the past 14 years? Am I missing something? I sense from your 2) , that you are not convinced that the email forum is working the way you would expect. It would be nice to have more specific and concrete suggestions on how to better meet the needs. Second, I fully endorse your proposed selection of focus with one proviso however on Waste Management. This now appears to be such a tremendously complicated and specialized area that I do not think we currently have the skills and expertise required within TechNet and the immunization logistics community to tackle the challenges. Perhaps our goal there would be to better define the technologies we can promote or the links we can/should establish/build with people dealing with the broader environmental issues? Third Like you I feel a strong sense of dÃ©jÃ vu. Why have these groups not worked in the past or worked in a limited way? I believe that what we need is the commitment of a partner to take the lead in one of the groups for one of the areas. This must be done with financial resources so that the partner can de facto finance activities of the experts that would be willing to engage in this particular field. Sub groups will not work unless they are properly funded and supported by one agency/partner. So we need to be humble and only select those topics for which we know we will get at least one partner involved and capable of mobilizing human and financial resources Dinosaurly yours, Michel ______________________________________________________________________________ Visit the TECHNET21 Website at http://www.technet21.org You will find instructions to subscribe, a direct access to archives, links to reference documents and other features. ______________________________________________________________________________ To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to : mailto:[log in to unmask] Leave the subject area BLANK In the message body, write unsubscribe TECHNET21E ______________________________________________________________________________ The World Health Organization and UNICEF support TechNet21. The TechNet21 e-Forum is a communication/information tool for generation of ideas on how to improve immunization services. It is moderated by Claude Letarte and is hosted in cooperation with the Centre de coopÃ©ration internationale en santÃ© et dÃ©veloppement, QuÃ©bec, Canada (http://www.ccisd.org) ______________________________________________________________________________
TechNet-21 - Forum
This forum provides a place for members to ask questions, share experiences, coordinate activities, and discuss recent developments in immunization.