Post on 25-Apr-2020
1
HEALTH CLUSTER COORDINATION TRAINING
20 – 29 November 2018
Divonne les Bains, France
Training Report
Prepared by Gillian O’Connell
Global Health Cluster Learning and Development Consultant
2
Contents
1.SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 5
2.1. Overview of the humanitarian challenges ......................................................................... 5
3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................. 5
3.1. The aims of this training were to: ........................................................................................... 5
3.2. Specific Objectives: ................................................................................................................ 6
In addition, Information Management Officers will also be able to: ................................. 6
4. STRENGTHENING COMPETENCIES ................................................................................................ 7
5. TRAINING DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 7
6. THE TRAINING AGENDA ................................................................................................................. 8
6.1 The Training Agenda ................................................................................................................ 9
7. THE PARTICIPANTS ......................................................................................................................... 10
8. THE PARTICIPANTS PACK ............................................................................................................. 15
9. THE TRAINERS AND FACILITATORS............................................................................................... 15
10. THE SIMULATION EXERCISE (SIMEX)........................................................................................... 18
11. THE EVALUATION OF THE TRAINING ......................................................................................... 19
11.1. Feedback from Participants .............................................................................................. 19
11.2. Pre and Post Training Questionnaire ................................................................................ 25
11.3. Feedback from the Training Team ................................................................................... 26
12. FINANCIAL REPORT ................................................................................................................... 29
13. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................. 29
ANNEX 1: THE HEALTH CLUSTER COORDINATION COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK ...................... 31
ANNEX 3: STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH INFORMATION SERVICES ...................................... 39
ANNEX 4: PARTICIPANT EXPECTATIONS (21 responses) ............................................................. 40
ANNEX 5: FINAL PARTICIPANTS EVALUATION OF WHOLE TRAINING .......................................... 45
ANNEX 5: PARTICIPANTS DAILY EVALUATIONS DAYS 1 – 6 .......................................................... 53
ANNEX 6: OTHER PARTICIPANTS FEEDBACK FROM THE SIMEX .................................................... 55
ANNEX 7: FEEDBACK FROM THE TRAINING TEAM ON LINE SURVEY ........................................... 65
3
1.SUMMARY
This fifth Health Cluster Coordination Training for current and potential Health
Cluster Coordinators and Information Management Officers took place at,
Divonne-les-Bains, France, from the 20 to 29 November 2018.
After the relaunch of the current series of Health Cluster Coordinator Training in
2015, joint Health Cluster Coordination training was designed by the Global Health
Cluster Capacity Development Task Team, the Public Health Information Services
Task Team, the Global Health Cluster Unit and other members of WHO staff. Since
its inception in 2016, each joint Health Cluster Coordination training has been
based on this design with adjustments as required to reflect the learning from
previous training evaluations and to adapt to the needs of each cohort.
This nine-day training programme contained a blend of didactic and practical
sessions, including three joint desk-top exercises and a two-day joint simulation
exercise (SIMEX), and closely followed the Humanitarian Programme Cycle.
The training was attended by thirty-eight (38) Participants. Thirty-two (32) of the
Participants were working for WHO, and six (6) of the Participants were with
Partner organisations, i.e. IMMAP x 3, SCI x 1, NRC x 1 and IRC x1. This means that
Health Cluster Partner Participants represented 15.7% of the cohort and is one of
the lowest rates for Partner participation since the current series of training started
in 2015. This was mainly due to this iteration of the training targeted participants
from the SEARO and WPRO Regions where there are few current official Health
Clusters and therefore few NGO co-coordinators.
In previous Health Cluster Coordination Training the Participant breakdown was as
follows:
Training
Number of
Participants
Number of
Partner
Participants
and % of
Cohort
2015 Health Cluster Coordinator
Training, Divonne les Bains
20
(6)
30%
2016 Joint Health Cluster
Coordination Training, Jordan
42
(13)
30.9%
2017 Joint Health Cluster Coordination
Training, Divonne les Bains
18
(3)
16%
2017 Joint Health Cluster
Coordination Training, Senegal
29
(7)
24%
4
There were twelve Health Cluster Coordinators, with five working at Sub-National
level and six Information Management Officers. The other twenty Participants had
a wide variety of roles, and sixteen were WHO WHE personnel mainly from the
SEARO and WPRO Regions. These participants were targeted as they are
frequently assigned partner coordination roles, using the cluster approach.
The regional breakdown was as follows:
AFRO 6
EMRO 13
EURO 2
SEARO 10
WPRO 5
WHO HQ 2
There were 26 male and 12 female Participants. Female Participants represented
31.5% of the cohort and is the highest proportion of female Participants since the
current series of training started in 2015.
Please see Section 7 for more information about the Participants.
The feedback from the Participants and the Training Team was very positive. The
Participants rating of the training overall was 3.44 out of a maximum rating of 4
and they provided positive and constructive feedback throughout the training.
The training was rigorously evaluated and provides a firm foundation for
continuing to strengthen and refine future training for Health Cluster Coordination
Teams. Please see Section 11 and Annexes 5 for more information about the
feedback from the Participants and Training Team.
We would like to
gratefully
acknowledge
funding from the
United States Agency
for International
Development’s
Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance
(USAID/OFDA). We
would also like to
gratefully
acknowledge the
technical and in-kind
support from members of the Public Health Information Task Team, WHO Regions
and Departments and the personnel in the Global Health Cluster Unit.
5
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
2.1. Overview of the humanitarian challenges
The need to protect and improve the lives and health of crisis-affected people
has never been greater with over 135.7 million people in need of humanitarian
assistance, including 68.5 million forcibly displaced people, the highest on record.
Disease outbreaks are a persistent threat. Over the past 6 years, WHO has
documented over 200 epidemic events globally per year.
There are currently 27 countries with active health clusters, 56% have emergency
operations. Most of these health clusters have one or more sub-national hubs and
globally there are 109 sub national sites. Staffing gaps are often solved by adding
Health Cluster responsibilities onto existing staff (so-called “double-hatting”), who
may not have the necessary skills, knowledge or support to fulfil these roles
adequately. Despite best efforts, this short- term approach can result in poor
strategic planning for emergencies, weak coordination and poor information
management, which in turn may result in a less than optimum response to the
needs of affected people.
The Global Health Cluster (GHC) seeks to increase the pool of competent Health
Cluster personnel by developing Health Cluster Coordination Training as part of a
wider Health Cluster Capacity Development Strategy. Since the relaunch of
Health Cluster Coordinator and Coordination training in September 2015, a total
of 147 personnel have been trained.
There have also been significant changes in the humanitarian system and
extensive and continued changes in the WHO /Health Cluster Lead Agency have
taken place. The WHO is reforming to be better equipped to address the
increasingly complex challenges of health emergencies in the 21st century. From
persisting problems to new and emerging public health threats, WHO needs the
capability and flexibility to respond to this evolving environment.
Health Cluster Coordination Training reflects these changes to ensure that the
Participants have the requisite skills and knowledge to effectively fulfil their roles
and responsibilities. The training curriculum has been designed around the phases
of the Humanitarian Program Cycle as endorsed by the IASC Principles and builds
on the directives of the Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at Country
Level (2015), both documents are among the eight protocols supporting the
implementation of the Transformative Agenda.
3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
3.1. The aims of this training were to:
1. Build and strengthen the capacity of Health Cluster Coordinators to lead and
coordinate the planning, implementation and monitoring of more effective,
efficient, timely and predictable evidence-based humanitarian health
interventions in acute and protracted emergencies.
2. Build and strengthen the capacity of Information Management Officers to lead
and coordinate the generation of evidence-based planning, implementation and
6
monitoring of humanitarian health interventions in acute and protracted
emergencies.
3. Ensure that Participants can effectively and collaboratively carry out the tasks
and duties associated with the Terms of Reference for Health Cluster Coordinators
and Information Management Officers.
3.2. Specific Objectives:
On completion of this training ALL Participants will be able to:
1. Understand and apply the key elements of the Transformative Agenda and
Humanitarian Reform in WHO and the implications for the Health Cluster.
2. Describe the role of the Global Health Cluster in facilitating access to
information, guidance and tools.
3. Describe, understand and implement the 6 Core Cluster Functions at national
and sub national level as well as the importance of accountability to affected
populations and protection mainstreaming.
4. Describe and understand the key roles and responsibilities of the Health Cluster
Coordinator and Information Management Officers and how these link to other
Health Cluster roles at country level.
5. Gain knowledge and understanding about collaborative leadership styles.
6. Identify and reflect on their own preferred styles of leadership and the areas
they need to further develop and strengthen.
In addition, Information Management Officers will also be able to:
7. Implement and manage core field-based information management tools.
8. Describe, understand and implement the Public Health Information Services
core quality standards.
The specific learning objectives and key messages for each session and training
components, including the Simulation Exercise, were based on the Health Cluster
Coordination Competency Framework and the structure of the training followed
the Humanitarian Programme Cycle:
• Needs Assessment and Analysis
• Strategic Response Planning
• Resource Mobilization
• Implementation and Monitoring
• Review and Evaluation
And the six core functions of a Cluster at the country-level:
• Supporting Service Delivery
• Informing Strategic Decision making of the HCT
• Planning and Strategy Development
• Advocacy
7
• Monitoring and Reporting
• Contingency Planning, Preparedness and Capacity Building
The training is also underpinned by the need for accountability to affected
populations and protection mainstreaming.
4. STRENGTHENING COMPETENCIES
The Global Health Cluster Capacity Development Task Team, in collaboration with
the Global Health Cluster Public Health Information Services Task Team,
developed a Health Cluster Coordination Competency Framework (HCC CF). The
HCC CF aims to be inclusive of the priorities, approaches and structures of the
different members and organisations that carry out Health Cluster activities in
emergency situations. The Competency Framework identifies eleven functional
competencies with specific examples of behaviours, each of which have been
grouped into domains that are reflective of the stages of the Humanitarian
Programme Cycle stages and the Cluster Functions at Country Level. The HCC CF
also contains ten competencies that are personal, rather than role-specific, in
nature. Please see Annex 1 for the HCC CF.
The training sessions were all mapped against the HCC CF and work continues to
ensure that the Simulation Exercise also tests the relevant competencies and has
clear learning outcomes.
During this training a HCC Personal Competency assessment and feedback tool
was piloted by the WHE Training Task Team to provide direct individual feedback
to participants on demonstrated personal competencies throughout the
simulation activities. The Personal Competencies were taken from the HCC
Competency Framework. The aim of this assessment and feedback tool is to
provide objective feedback on the competencies which are being performed
well and those which require strengthening. Observers from the Training Team
recorded Participants performance during the SIMEX activities only. In total, 1184
observations were recorded for the group as a whole. The results were fed back
individually to the Participants at the end of the SIMEX. The Participants were able
to opt out this process if they did not wish to receive this feedback. All the
Participants chose to receive feedback. See Annex 2 for the tool which was used
and the average results for the whole group. There were some concerns
expressed by the Participants and Training Team about the effectiveness of this
tool to measure the performance of personal competencies at its current stage of
development. These concerns were discussed during the final plenary on the last
day of the training when further explanation was given about the purpose of this
process and its current stage of development. Assurances were also given that no
record of the outcome would be kept or referred to by the Global Health Cluster
Unit.
5. TRAINING DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This nine-day training programme, which built on the learning and evaluations of
all previous trainings since 2015, contained a blend of didactic and practical
sessions, including two desk top exercises and a two-day simulation exercise. The
training closely followed the Humanitarian Programme Cycle.
8
The agenda, content and methodology were designed to ensure that there was
a good balance between technical knowledge and theoretical input from
Trainers and Facilitators, and practical sessions to work on group learning
activities, to share experience, to apply learning, to enable reflection and to
receive feedback on performance and outputs.
To ensure high levels of attention, concentration, reflection, retention and
application most of the more didactic/theoretical sessions took place in the
morning and most of these sessions also had short practical group work exercises.
This balanced and blended approach to learning ensured that the training was
building on the experience of delivering previous training, good learning practice
and the training methodologies responded to a wide range of learning styles.
Compulsory Pre Reading
The Participants were asked to ensure that they had completed the following pre-
readings before starting the training. The pre-reading was kept to a minimum in
recognition of response priorities and high workloads.
• Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at the Country Level (June 2015)
• Health Cluster Operational Guidance on AAP
• Public Health Information Services Standards (June 2017)
• PHIS Toolkit (October 2018)
• Working Paper for Considering CASH transfer programming for health in
humanitarian contexts
• Humanitarian Programme Cycle Reference Module Version 1.0 (June 2015)
• Humanitarian Needs Overview Guidance
• WHO Guidance for Contingency Planning
6. THE TRAINING AGENDA
The training agenda consisted of joint
sessions for Health Cluster Coordinators and
Information Management Officers, two desk
top exercises with four optional evening
Clinics for areas not included in depth in the
main agenda and a joint two-day SIMEX. The
training agenda was adjusted as the training
was running to take account of feedback
from the Participants and Training Team.
9
6.1 The Training Agenda
Day 0
20 November
Day 1
Wednesday 21 November
Day 2
Thursday 22 November
Day 3
Friday 23 November
Day 4
Saturday 24 November
Day 5
Sunday 25 November
Day 6
Monday 26 November
Day 7
Tuesday 27 November
Day 8
Wednesday 28 November
Day 9
Thursday 29 November
Activity Session Session Session Session Session Session Session Session Session
08.30 - 08.45 Start of Training Start of Training Start of Training Start of Training Start of Training Start of Training Start of Training Start of Training Start of Training
08.45 - 10.15Arrival of Participants
Hotel Check-in
1.1. Updates from the Global Level
Linda Doull
2.1. a) Needs Assessment and
Analysis: What information is
needed?
2.1. b) PHIS Standards
2.1.c) EWARS
Boris Pavlin and Emanuele Bruni
3.1 HeRAMS
Samuel Petragallos
4.1 CASH Programming
Andre Griekspoor
5.1 Humanitarian Response Monitoring
Emanuele Bruni
6.1a ) Advocacy
Gabriel Novelo Sierra
6.1b) Attacks on Health Care
Hyo Jeong
Free time for Participants 6.1. Simex 7.1. Simex
Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee available Coffee available
10.45 - 12.30Arrival of Participants
Hotel Check-in
1.2. Health Cluster Coordination
Overview
Critical Health Cluster
issues
Gabriel Novelo Sierra
2.2. Needs Assessment and Analysis:
Public Health Indicators and
secondary data analysis
Boris Pavlin
3.2 HNO
Patricia Kormoss
4.2 Humanitarian Response
Planning
Patricia Kormoss
5.2 Resource Mobilisation
Karim Yassmineh
6.2 Preparedness, Contingency
Planning, (PPE)
Patricia KormossFree time for Participants 6.2. Simex
7.2.a) Simex debriefs
7.2.b) Individual feedback on
Personal Competencies
7.2.c) Post Training
Questionnaire
12.30-13-30 Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
13.30 - 15.15Arrival of Participants
Hotel Check-in
1.3 a) AAP and Protection
Mainstreaming
Gabriel Novelo Sierra
1.3 b) HIV in emergencies
Bryony Stevens WFP
Ann Burton UNHCR
2.3.Needs Analysis and Assessment:
Rapid Field Assessment
Boris Pavlin
3.3a) Cross-cutting issues
3.3.b) Inter-cluster Coordination
Patricia Kormoss
4.3 Humanitarian Response
Planning con't
Patricia Kormoss
5.3 Resource Mobilisation cont.
Karim Yassmineh
6.3.a) Communicable disease Alerts:
GOARN response
Alex Rosewell
6.3.b) Coordination with Emergency
Medical Teams
Christophe Schmachtel
5.4. Start of SIMEX
and Simex schedule6.3. Simex
7.4. Final Plenary
session, certificates and
closing of training
Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee Break Coffee available Coffee available Training finished at 1500
15.45-17.30
Arrival of Participants
Hotel Check-in
Registration from 1600
1.4 Collaborative Leadership
Leadership Styles Reflection Group
Gillian O'Connell
2.4. Joint Desk top exercise on public
health situation analysis (based on
Simex)
Boris Pavlin and Emanuele Bruni
3.4 Health Cluster Coordinators -
Humanitarian Development Nexus
capacity building
Andre Griekspoor
4.4 Joint desk top exercise on HRP
(based on Simex
Ala Abouzeid
5.4 CERF exercise
Karim Yassmineh
6.4. a) CCPM
Gabriel Novelo Sierra
6.4.b) Wrap up of training sessions and
summary of learning objectives for
each session
Ala Abouzeid
5.5 Simex 6.4.Simex Participants depart
17.30 - 18.00Daily summary / Catch up of time if
session or breaks run over
Daily summary / Catch up of time if
session or breaks run over
Daily summary / Catch up of time if
session or breaks run over
Daily summary / Catch up of time if
session or breaks run over
Daily summary / Catch up of time if
session or breaks run over
Daily summary / Catch up of time if
session or breaks run over
18.00 - 19.00 Break Break Break Break Break Coffee available Break
19.00 - 20.00
1830 1930 - Optional Drop in Clinic
Building High Performing Teams
Gillian O'Connell
1800 - 1900 - Optional Drop in Clinic
OCHA
1800 - 1900 Optional Drop in Clinic
Coordination Dilemmas
Gabriel Novelo Sierra
1800 - 1900 - Optional Drop in Clinic
Accountability to Affected Populations
Emma Fitzpatrick
5.6. Simex
Evening sessions can go late. Please do
not make other plans.
6.5. Simex
Evening sessions can go late.
Please do not make other plans.
18.00-19.00
Welcome Reception
Opening of training, welcome
and introductions, overview of
training, expectations
Time
Afte
rn
oo
n S
essio
ns
Mo
rn
ing
S
essio
ns
Ev
en
ing
10
The Clinics
The training agenda contained four one-hour evening slots for Clinics on
optional topics identified by the Training Team. These optional sessions
were an opportunity to go deeper into areas not covered in detail in the
main agenda or to respond to requests from the Participants.
The Clinics were
positively received
by the Participants
who attended
them, and were as
follows:
CLINIC LED BY NUMBER
ATTENDING
Building High Performing Teams Gillian O’Connell 10
Working with OCHA Annarita
Marcantonio 16
Coordination Dilemmas Gabriel Novelo 14
Accountability to Affected Populations Emma Fitzpatrick 12
7. THE PARTICIPANTS
The training was originally planned for 48 participants, but 8 Participants were
unable to attend because of their visas were not approved, and two participants
had last minute work emergencies. This meant that the training was attended by
thirty-eight (38) Participants. Thirty-two of the Participants were WHO Personnel
and six were from Health Cluster Partners. There were 26 male and 12 female
Participants. Female Participants represented 31.5% of the cohort and is the
highest proportion of female Participants since the current series of training started
in 2015. Please see below for the number of female Participants in previous
trainings.
11
Training
Number of
Participants
Number of Female
Participants and % of
Cohort
2015 Health Cluster
Coordinator Training, Divonne
les Bains
20
4
20%
2016 Joint Health Cluster
Coordination Training, Jordan
42
10
24%
2017 Joint Health Cluster
Coordination Training, Divonne
les Bains
18
2
22%
2017 Joint Health Cluster
Coordination Training, Senegal
29
5
17%
The Participants had a very wide range of experience, and represented AFRO (6),
EMRO (13), EURO (2), WPRO (5), SEARO (10), WHO HQ (2). Partners were
represented by IMMAP (3), Save the Children (1), NRC (1), IRC (1). AMRO (1),
There were twelve Health Cluster Coordinators, with five working at Sub National
level and six Information Management Officers. The other twenty participants had
a wide variety of roles and sixteen were WHE personnel.
Please see below for a detailed breakdown of the Participants and their roles.
12
REGION NAME COUNTRY ORGANISATION ROLE
AFRO
1 Umesh Kattel Addis/Ethiopia WHO Sub-National HCC
2 Beatrice Muraguri Addis/Ethiopia WHO IMO/Acting HCC
3 Yaoklou
Mawuémiyo
ADANDJI Niamey/Niger WHO HCC
4 Muhammed
Kamran
Baig Maiduguri/Nigeria IMMAP IMO
5 Muhammad Shafiq Maiduguri/Nigeria WHO Health Sector Coordinator
6 Arsene Enyegue Goma/DRC NRC Sub-National HCC
EMRO
7 Sailab Ayubi Kandahar/Afghanistan WHO Sub-National HCC
8 Samuel Omara Erbil/IRAQ IMMAP IMO
9 Karol Ramirez Duque Erbil/IRAQ IMMAP IMO
10 Hussein Hassen Tripoli/Libya WHO HCC
11 Nour Said Jerusalem/OPT WHO IMO
12 Mohammed Marouf Gaza/OPT WHO IMO
13 Dayib Mohamed Ahmed Mogadishu/Somalia SCI Co-Coordinator
14 Arun Mallik Khartoum/Sudan WHO HCC
15 Fares Kady Aleppo/Syria WHO Sub-National HCC
16 Nadia Aljamali Damascus/Syria WHO Head of WHO Homs Sub-Office
17 Christina Bethke WoS WHO HCC - Jordan
18 Kais Al Dairi Whole of Syria IRC WOS Co/coordination
19 Judith Starkulla Jordan WHO WHE Team Lead
EURO
20 Oleg Storozhenko EURO WHO HEP Technical Officer, Emergency Ops
21 Jorge Martinez Turkey WHO HCC
WPRO
22 Zaixing Zhang PNG WHO HEP Team Coordination
23 Satoko Otsu Vietnam WHO HEP Team leader WHE
24 Philippe Guyant Vanuatu WHO HEP Communicable Disease
25 Ariuntuya Ochirpurev Mongolia WHO HEP WHE
13
26 Vannda Kab Phnom Penh/Cambodia WHO HEP Technical Officer
SEARO
27 Egmond Evers SEARO WHO HEP Partnershipis Officer
28 Purvi Paliwal SEARO WHO HEP Resource mobilization
29 Sugandika Perera WCO Sri Lanka WHO HEP National Professional Officer
30 Balwinder Chawla WHO CXB Bangladesh WHO HEP Health Sector Coordinator
31 Reuben Samuel WCO Nepal WHO HEP Technical Officer/Team leader
32 Pushpa Wijesinghe Pyong Yang/WCO
DPR Korea
WHO HEP MO/CDS/WHE focal point
33 Tika Sedai New Delhi/SEARO WHO HEP Data Management
34 Md Mazhar WHO CXB office WHO HEP Surveillance and Outbreak Officer
35 Zahid Rahim WCO Bangladesh WHO HEP NPO/EHA
36 Win Bo Yangon/Myanmar WHO HEP National Technical Officer
HQ
37 Erna Van Goor Cameroon WHO HQ Cluster Coordinator
38 Judith Maina WHO HQ WHO HQ Emergency Officer
14
Participants Expectations
Before the training started the Participants were asked via Moodle to identify their
top three expectations of the training. Twenty-one Participants sent in their
expectations. These were reviewed by the Training Team on 20 November 2018
and responded to during the Welcome Reception, when it was confirmed that all
expectations which had been received would be covered during the training.
Summary:
Participants wanted to learn about,
experience, share
Number of times
mentioned
Tools, standards and processes 17
The Health Cluster 16
Applying and continuing the learning 8
Lessons and good practice 8
Coordination challenges and issues 7
Understanding the role of the Health Cluster
Coordinator
5
Networking 4
Inter-cluster and Partner Coordination 2
Please see ANNEX 4 for a record of the Participant expectations which were
received.
15
8. THE PARTICIPANTS PACK
Information for Participants before, during and after training was shared by means
of an online Participants Pack on Moodle. Moodle is a learning platform designed
to provide educators, administrators and learners with a single robust, secure and
integrated system to create personalised and training specific learning
environments. This information included Participant and Training Team profiles, visa
and venue information/logistics, expectations, essential pre-reading, learning and
training materials and resources and evaluation tools.
9. THE TRAINERS AND FACILITATORS
The training was co-ordinated by the Global Health Cluster Unit in close
collaboration with the Public Health Information Services Task Team and other
WHO/EMO units. Patricia Kormoss, Partnership Officer, WHE/EURO, Alaa Abouzeid
Partnership Officer, WHE/EMRO and Gabriel Novelo, Health Cluster Coordinator
Ukraine were part of the core expert group for the delivery of the training
throughout the 9 days. In total, twenty-four personnel were directly involved in
developing, delivering and supporting this training.
Please see below for more information about the Training Team:
16
THE TRAINING TEAM
Name Organisation Position Role
Alaa Abouzeid WHO EMRO Team Lead, Operational
Partnerships Session Trainer and SIMEX support
Alex Rosewell WHO
Global Outbreak Alert
and Response Network
(GOARN)
Session Trainer and SIMEX support
Andre Griekspoor WHO Senior Humanitarian
Policy Advisor Session Trainer
Annarita Marcantonio OCHA Humanitarian Affairs
Officer Clinic Lead, Session resource expert
Ann Burton UNHCR
Chief, Public Health
Section at UNHCR, IASC
HIV Task Team
Session Trainer
Boris Pavlin WHO
Epidemiologist - Health
Operations Monitoring &
Data Collection Officer
Session Trainer
Bryony Stevens WFP IASC HIV Task Team Session Trainer
Carolyn Patten-Reymond WHO Administrative Assistant -
Global Health Cluster Secretariat and SIMEX support
Christophe Schmachtel WHO EMT Technical Officer Session Trainer
Elisabetta Minelli GHC GHC Technical Officer Secretariat and SIMEX support
Emanuele Bruni WHO HIM Health Information
Officer Session Trainer and SIMEX Support
Emma Fitzpatrick GHC GHC Technical Senior
Officer
Training Manager, Event Co-Facilitator, Secretariat and
SIMEX support
Gabriel Novelo Sierra GHC Health Cluster
Coordinator Ukraine Session Trainer and SIMEX support
17
Gillian O'Connell GHC Learning and
Development Consultant
Training Event Co-Facilitator, Session Trainer, and SIMEX
support
Heini Utunen WHO
Technical Officer
Learning and Capacity
Development
SIMEX Manager
Hyo Jeong Kim WHO
Technical Officer
Humanitarian Policy and
Guidance
Session Trainer and SIMEX Support
Karim Yassnineh WHO Resource mobilisation
officer Session Trainer
Linda Doull GHC Global Health Cluster
Coordinator Session Trainer and SIMEX support
Monta Reinfelde WHO
Consultant on Learning
and Capacity
Development
SIMEX support
Oliver Stucke WHO Learning and Capacity
Development Officer
SIMEX support, Personal Competency Feedback
Coordinator
Patricia Kormoss WHO Operational Partnership
Officer Session Trainer and SIMEX support
Samuel Petragallos WHO Information
Management Officer Session Trainer
Silvia Sanchez GHC Intern at the Global
Health Cluster Secretariat
Sophie Bonnet WHO Intern at WHO SIMEX support
Corentin Piroux WHO Intern at WHO SIMEX support
18
10. THE SIMULATION EXERCISE (SIMEX)
The two-day SIMEX scenario was based on a real protracted crisis with small
changes to accommodate the training context. The same scenario was also the
basis for practical sessions and desk top exercises in the preceding training. The
scenario has been developed for this training over the last four training events
and has been retained because it has proven to very effective in eliciting and
developing the required health cluster coordination competencies and learning
outcomes.
The aims of the SIMEX were to:
• Build and strengthen the capacity of Health Cluster Coordination Teams to lead
and coordinate the planning, implementation and monitoring of
more effective, efficient, timely and predictable evidence-based humanitarian
health interventions in the field over 15 days following the onset of a large-scale
emergency.
• Practice and reintegrate what have been learned in the training.
• Experience Health Cluster functions and deliverables in different phases of an
emergency.
The specific objectives of the SIMEX were to:
• Demonstrate knowledge of the Emergency Response Planning and
Humanitarian Program Cycle.
• Apply field skills, including team work, self and stress management, working
under pressure, and an understanding of the code of conduct and ethics.
• Build on and exercise professional and interpersonal skills of increasing
importance: learning how to handle diverging views, positions, interests and
values, networking techniques, negotiating skills.
During the previous practical sessions and desktop exercises the Participants
developed the following documents:
• A Health Situation Analysis;
• Strategic objectives and detailed activities for a Flash Appeal (including
19
costings);
• A strategic response plan;
• Determined the structure of the health cluster needed for the response;
• Health Cluster Bulletin
• 3 Ws matrix and dashboards;
• EWARS reports;
The following drills also took place with a set of deliverables which built on the
earlier learning activities:
• Organizing a Needs Assessment exercise;
• Participating in a Needs Assessment Mission;
• Strategic Response Plan;
• Presenting the Cluster Response Plan to the Health Officials;
• Resource Mobilisation – Donor Conference;
• Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation;
• Detailed update to donors.
Members of the Training Team took on the roles and provided feedback on the
deliverables throughout the SIMEX.
11. THE EVALUATION OF THE TRAINING
The training was rigorously evaluated throughout and immediately after the
training and feedback was continuously garnered from the Participants and the
Training Team. This produced a wealth of detailed and constructive feedback
which will be referred to in the planning and design of future training.
11.1. Feedback from Participants
Feedback was collected from the Participants during the training by means of:
• Daily feedback from participant representatives in short “navigation” meetings
with the Training Facilitators at the end of days 1 to 6. This feedback was
immediately fed back to the Training Team in the daily Training Team meetings
and acted upon where possible and appropriate;
• A “Parking Lot” for questions and queries which were unanswered or not
addressed in the sessions, the questions were mostly responded to the following
day in plenary by the appropriate member of the training team or directly with
the Participant who asked the question
• On line evaluation forms for days 1 – 6
• On line feedback on the whole training and SIMEX on the last day;
• A SIMEX debrief with all Participants in their teams.
The feedback from the Participants was consistently very positive throughout the
nine days and showed very high levels of participant satisfaction with the quality of
the training.
The rating scale for the on-line evaluation for training days 1 – 6 and the final
overall training evaluation was:
1 = Poor; 2 = Fair; 3 = Good; 4 = Excellent
20
The feedback also provided many examples of how the Participants intend to use
and apply their learning and provides a firm foundation for developing and
strengthening future global and regional training for Health Cluster Coordination.
Feedback was collected from the Participants on a wide range of areas and the
full feedback will be referred to by the Global Health Cluster Unit and Public Health
Information Services Task Team when planning and designing future trainings.
The Participants’ Final Evaluation
Thirty-two Participants had completed the final training evaluation by the 4
December 2018.
The results of the quantitative questions were as follows:
Question
Overall how would you rate?
Rating
This training 3.44
The facilitation 3.53
The training logistics and administration
before and during the training
3.68
The pre-training information and joining
instructions on Moodle
3.44
The venue and training spaces 3.44
The meals and refreshments 3.08
A summary of the qualitative feedback showed that overall the Participants
gave very positive feedback about the training, with many of the Participants
commenting on how well the training was organised and how closely it
matched their expectations.
There was very little consistency in the final constructive feedback, but some
Participants reported that they:
• Found the training too long
• Would like more concise presentations
• Would prefer more practical sessions
There was one request for the knowledge components to be available
by eLearning. Two Participants found the training too basic.
In answer to the question “Which 5 sessions or learning activities contributed
most to your learning and development? the top five sessions were identified as:
• Session 3.2. Humanitarian Needs Overview
• Session 2.4. Public Health Sector Analysis
• Session 3.1. HeRAMs
• Session 1.3.a) AAP
• Sessions 5.2. & 5.3. Resource Mobilisation
21
In answer to the question “Were there any gaps in the training or any areas which were
not adequately addressed?” there were no consistent answers or patterns to the
feedback, and the responses were very individually specific, for example:
• More on emergencies where the Health Cluster is not activated
• The role of a Partnership Officer
• Preparedness, Contingency and Planning
• There were two comments about connecting and harmonising themes: HRP, ERP,
Civ/Mil coordination.
In answer to the question: “In
addition to learning about
Health Cluster Coordination,
what else have you gained
from participating in this
training?” there were many
mentions of networking and
building relationships with the
Global Health Cluster Unit and
WHO Head Office. The
following statements are
typical of this type of
feedback:
“I have networked with brilliant
colleagues from different regions,”
“I have learnt a lot from my colleagues”
Participants Learning
A review of all the responses to questions from the daily and final evaluation regarding
how much the Participants had learned showed that most reported learning was about:
• The Health Cluster
• Leadership
• Humanitarian Response Planning
• HeRAMS
• Information
• Humanitarian Needs Overview
• Data Assessment
• Public Health Sector Analysis
There were also many examples of how this learning would be applied in the work place.
Please see Annex 5 for additional feedback from the final evaluation.
Participants’ Daily Evaluations: Days 1 to 6
The quantitative feedback for Days 1 to 6 showed a rating range of 2.3 for Session 1.3.b)
HIV in Emergencies to 3.67 for Session 4.4. Desk Top Exercise on Humanitarian Response
Planning.
22
The full results for each Session are below:
Summary of qualitative feedback Days 1 to 6
The Participants provided a rich amount of daily qualitative feedback and a summary
of the more consistent feedback is below. All the constructive feedback was also
identified in the Navigation Group feedback at the end of days 1 to 6, and was
addressed or responded to as the training ran:
• The feedback was very positive from Day 1 and became more so as the week went
on.
• There were many examples of learning and reflection about how the Participants
were planning to use it
• The Participants enjoyed the practical methodology and group work
• The Participants wanted more time for discussion
• There were some strong constructive comments about the session on HIV in
Emergencies. There was also some constructive feedback about the sessions on HNO,
Cross Cutting Issues and Preparedness and Contingency Planning, but there was no
strong consistency with these comments.
• Some of the Participants didn’t like three sessions in a row being given by same
presenter, for example Resource Mobilisation
• Two Participants asked for all presentations to be up dated
• There were requests to share the Learning Objectives for each session
• Participants like the tight time management and were quick to comment on sessions
which over ran.
23
Please see Annex 5 for additional Participant feedback from Days 1 – 6.
Participants’ SIMEX Evaluation
Team Debriefs:
The Participants were allocated to four teams for the SIMEX - Alpha, Bravo,
Charlie and Delta and for associated desk top exercises during the training.
At the end of the SIMEX each of the teams were debriefed separately on the
SIMEX overall and the activities and injects. Overall the feedback from these
debriefs was very positive.
SIMEX evaluation
Thirty-six Participants had completed the on line SIMEX evaluation by the 4
December 2018.
The Participants were asked to show whether they: Strongly Agreed, Somewhat
Agreed, Somewhat Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed with statements about their
experience of the training.
The results showed a very high level of Participant satisfaction with their learning
from the SIMEX activities with 97% of the Participants agreeing with the
statement: “I’m better prepared to act and respond appropriately according to
my role”. 53% of the Participants strongly agreed with this statement.
Please see below for the additional responses to other statements.
QUESTION STRONGLY
AGREE
SOMEWHAT
AGREE
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
I was able to apply
learned knowledge and
skills to build and
strengthen the capacity of
Health Cluster
Coordination Teams to
lead and coordinate the
planning, implementation
and monitoring of
more effective, efficient,
timely and predictable
evidence-based
humanitarian health
interventions in the field
58% 36% 6% 0%
I was able to demonstrate
knowledge of the
Emergency Response
Planning and
Humanitarian Program
Cycle in a series of
emergency-like scenario
64% 28% 8% 0%
24
I was able to experience
Health Cluster functions in
different stages and
deliverables related to
emergency situations
61% 31% 8% 0%
I was able to practice and
reintegrate what has been
learned in the training
58% 31% 11% 0%
I’m more familiar with field
skills, including team work,
self and stress
management, working
under pressure
56% 42% 3% 0%
I’m better prepared to act
and respond
appropriately according
to my role
53% 44% 3% 0%
I have been building and
exercising professional and
interpersonal skills of
increasing importance:
learning how to handle
diverging views, positions,
interests and values,
networking techniques,
negotiating skills
61% 28% 11% 0%
The qualitative feedback from the SIMEX was also very positive with most of the
Participants reporting that they enjoyed the team work and working under pressure.
Suggested Improvements included:
• Increase the time for the SIMEX.
• Have smaller teams
• Assign roles, so everyone has something to do
• Provide better briefings about scenario activities and what is expected
• Develop Natural disaster scenario
• There was one comment about the need for Facilitators to be “a bit more
culturally sensitive specially to evaluate the participants. Communication skill is
very subjective.”
In the final training evaluation there was one comment which said:
“The evaluation portion of the SIMEX needs a complete overhaul”. It is unclear if this
comment is referring to the on-line evaluation or the assessment of the Personal
Competencies.
Please see Annex 6 for a summary of additional feedback from the final
Participants’ evaluation of the SIMEX.
25
11.2. Pre and Post Training Questionnaire
The Participants were asked to complete a pre-training questionnaire on arrival
at the venue. The questionnaire consisted of 25 questions which were designed
to test the knowledge base expected of all Participants. The same questionnaire
was repeated by the Participants on the last afternoon of the training.
The Results
There was a total of 38 Participants on the training. Thirty-three of the
Participants completed the pre-training questionnaire, with mean of 16.71. The
maximum possible score was 25.
Thirty-seven Participants completed the post-training questionnaire with a mean
of 19.62.
Thirty-two of the Participants completed both the pre and post training
questionnaire. The pre-training mean for these 32 participants was 17.66 and the
post training mean was 19.24, so a gain of 2.28. The results therefore show some
evidence of a small impact on short term knowledge retention.
An analysis of the disaggregated results for Health Cluster personal only, showed
a pre-training mean of 17.62 and a post training mean of 19.93 so an increase of
2.31, i.e. no significant difference in comparison to the whole cohort.
The analysis of the results also showed that although 22 of the Participants’
scores had increased, 7 of the post training scores went down, with three
Participants having a reduced score of 3 points. The scores of 3 Participants
were unchanged. One possible explanation for this is that the pre-training
questionnaire was not completed under controlled conditions and was given to
the Participants with their hard copy Participants folder and some Participants
may have referred to while completing the pre-training questionnaire. If so this
may have inflated the pre- training scores. The pre and post training
questionnaire are a learning activity as well as a guide to knowledge retention.
A comparison of results with
previous trainings is as
follows and shows that the
largest increase in the
scores was in the
Participants on the training
in Senegal in 2017.
However, the number of
questions had decreased
from previous trainings so
direct comparisons are
questionable.
26
Training
Results of the Pre and Post Training
Questionnaire
2016 Joint Health Cluster
Coordination Training,
Jordan
Total number of questions 34
15 out of 42 Participants completed both:
Pre 22.06 post 23.6,
1.54 increase
but the conclusion was that the results
were not able to give a reliable measure.
2017 Joint Health Cluster
Coordination Training,
Divonne les Bains
Total number of questions 34
All 18 Participants completed both:
pre 21.7 post 25.4
3.7. increase
5 stayed same.
2017 Joint Health Cluster
Coordination Training,
Senegal
Total number of questions 25
23 out of 29 Participants completed both
pre16.62 post 21.3
4.69 increase
2 stayed the same.
11.3. Feedback from the Training Team
Feedback was received from the Training Team by means of a teleconference
which took place on the 10 December 2018 and an online survey.
Training Team Meeting/teleconference
The meeting/teleconference was attended by:
1. Alaa Abouzeid
2. Emma Fitzpatrick
3. Gabriel Novelo Sierra
4. Gillian O’Connell
5. Karim Yassmineh
6. Linda Doull
7. Oliver Stucke
8. Patricia Kormoss
Agenda:
1. The Structure of the Training Report
2. A summary of all feedback received from the Participants
3. Key messages from the Training Team from the current training
4. Thoughts on the development of future training
5. Recommendations
The Feedback from the Training Team members who took part in this meeting
was as follows:
27
NAME
Key Messages from recent training, and thoughts on future training
Alaa Abouzeid • Shorten the training – it’s currently very resource intensive
• This was the most successful training he’s ever seen
• Ensure all essential pre-reading is completed
Gabriel Novelo
Sierra
• IMOs scores had increased in the post training questionnaire
• Identify which sessions could be replaced by pre-eLearning
• Some Participants complained that not all Participants had
done the pre-reading and that this impacted on group
learning activities which assume everyone had the
foundation knowledge
• Develop other scenarios for the SIMEX – too much reliance on
URUK
• Develop regional training
Emma Fitzpatrick • Training could be shortened to 6 days, with more focus on the
SIMEX
• Separate out role players and observers so as not to over
stretch Training Team
• Have NGO staff in the Training Team
• Develop contextualised regional training
Oliver Stucke • Improve personal competency assessment methodology
and tool – improve clarity
• Train Observers in use of the tool and in using common
standards
• Ensure ALL Participants do pre-reading
• Provide training/guidance on preparing and holding
meetings
Gillian O’Connell • Ensure all sessions and SIMEX activities have clear learning
objectives which are shared with the Participants at the start
of each session
• Share session plans with Training Team early enough for
effective peer review and comment
• Strengthen links between Leadership session and the SIMEX –
build in Situational Leadership
Linda Doull • Shorten training, some learning can be covered by new
eLearning modules
• Make better use of trainers who are available, so not to rely
on same people
• SIMEX – ensure role players don’t take over the Participants
learning space – give Participants the space to engage in
the learning activities
• Ensure clear learning objectives for all sessions and SIMEX
activities.
• Training content felt too WHO focussed at times, with not
enough emphasis on Partners and Partnership –review and
adjust language in training sessions and SIMEX to reflect
Partners
• Refresh SIMEX – to bring in how the Health Cluster
works/interfaces with GOARN, EMT and Incident Managers
28
• Develop contextualised regional training as next stage
Karim Yassmineh • Don’t have three sessions on same topic and with same
presenter back to back, as there is a lot of information from
Participants to absorb
• Add familiarity with Pool Fund to the Learning Objectives
• Participants at different levels of knowledge, makes it
challenging for the trainers
• Not all Participants were Health Cluster personnel – need to
get a better balance
Patricia Kormoss • As the competencies and expertise of the participants were
very different - scaling from none to high - finding the right
balance on what needed to be taught was very challenging.
The knowledge between WHO regions was very diverse and
different approaches are currently used therefore the sessions
might have created additional confusion for some of the
participants.
• Some participants were taking it as granted that they had
the right knowledge, "already known", others were not
interested in the training at all. This jeopardized the sessions. A
few of the participant had very negative attitudes and
behaviours during the sessions.
• Future trainings should be organised at regional level, taking
into account regional specificities, context and expertise.
• GHC and WHE teams should work closer to each other and
ensure that they have common understanding on and use of
specific terminologies (especially related to emergency
preparedness and contingency planning)
• For future, sessions flow and management, I would
recommend that one trainer should not perform several
sessions in a row.
The Online Survey
All the Training Team were also asked to provide feedback by means of a short
online survey. Fourteen members of the Training Team had completed the
survey by the time this report was written.
The Training Team gave a rating of 3.43 out of 4 for the training over all.
Please see ANNEX 7 for the additional feedback received from the Training
Team.
29
12. FINANCIAL REPORT
The direct costs of this training for 38 Participants were as follows:
ITEM COVERED BY CURRENCY AMOUNT EXCHANGE
RATE
AMOUNT
US$
Venue GHCU EUR 93.775 0.879 106,683
WHO Travel -
including per diem
(WHO
staff/Consultant)
WHO USD 146.294 0 146,293
Extras, stationery
etc. GHCU CHF 200 0.996 199
GHCU Consultant
contract GHCU GBP 6245.25 0.783 7,975
Other - equipment
rental GHCU EUR 6774 0.879 7,706
Total 268,856
This represents a unit cost per participant of USD 7,075.
The unit cost compares with previous trainings since 2015 follows:
Health Cluster Coordinator Training 2015
(Divonne les Bains)
USD 8254.65
Joint Health Cluster Coordination Training
2016 (Jordan)
USD 5315.26
Joint Health Cluster Coordination Training
2017 (Divonne les Bains)
USD 6295.16
Joint Health Cluster Coordination Training
2017 (Senegal)
USD 8311.74
13. RECOMMENDATIONS
These recommendations are based on the discussions which took place
at the Training Team meeting on the 10 December 2018:
(not in priority order)
1. Develop contextualised and shorter regional (and Global) training.
2. Review the curriculum framework and introduce appropriate eLearning modules as
essential pre-learning.
3. Ensure that essential pre-learning and any essential pre-reading is completed by all
Participants before the training starts.
4. Refresh the SIMEX to include coordination with GOARN, EMTs and Incident Managers
30
5. Develop new scenarios for the SIMEX, to include natural disasters (flood, Tsunami,
earthquake, typhoon).
6. Ensure training content reflects Health Cluster Partners and the partnership approach.
7. Identify Partner representatives for future Training Teams.
8. Refresh the Health Cluster Coordination Training Pack and ensure that all training sessions
and SIMEX objectives have clear learning objectives and are linked to the Health Cluster
Coordination Competency Framework.
9. Ensure that all sessions are shared with all Training Team members well in advance of the
training.
10. Ensure that Participants more closely match the target group, or that there are strong
reasons for inclusion in the training.
31
ANNEX 1: THE HEALTH CLUSTER COORDINATION COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK
Purpose
The purpose of this competency framework is to provide a set of standards to:
• Facilitate staff recruitment into cluster roles on the basis of expected competencies
• Define the learning outcomes for a capacity development and professional development programme
• Provide the basis for appraising and managing staff performance
The competencies are designed to be:
• Primarily for Health Cluster staff in humanitarian contexts
• Complementary to other function specific or technical frameworks, such as the Core Humanitarian Competencies and the Public Health
Information Services Technical (PHIS) Competency Framework
• Relevant to different professional levels
• Sufficiently flexible to be used as a recruitment, learning and development and performance management tool
• Concise, logical and easy to use
• Transferable globally across people, countries and cultures.
-
The framework, therefore, aims to be inclusive of priorities, approaches and structures of the different members and organisations who carry out
Health Cluster activities in emergency situations. It identifies 11 functional competencies with specific examples of behaviours, each of which
have been grouped into domains that are reflective of the stages of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle stages and the Cluster Functions at
Country Level. These competencies are followed by ten competencies that are personal, rather than role-specific, in nature.
Each competency has the following components:
• Competency: a blend of the knowledge, skills and qualities needed to complete a task, deliver an input, achieve an output and to have
an impact.
• Role-Specific Behaviours: examples of how Health Cluster staff can demonstrate the associated competency.
32
DOMAIN1
COMPETENCY2
ROLE SPECIFIC BEHAVIOURS
HEALTH CLUSTER COORDINATORS
ROLE SPECIFIC BEHAVIOURS
PHIS OFFICERS
Needs Assessment &
Analysis
1. Coordinate timely and
effective needs assessment
and response gap analysis
(across sectors and within
the sector).
A. Ensure that humanitarian health
needs, gaps and risks are identified by
planning and coordinating timely joint,
inter-cluster, initial rapid assessments
adapting to the local context the MIRA
and/or HESPER methods, as well as
instigating mortality estimation and
surveillance of epidemic-prone diseases
and attacks against health care, as per
global GHC standards.
B. Assesses and monitor the availability of
health services provided by all health
actors by instigating timely data
collection as per global GHC standards
(Health Resources Availability Mapping
System [HeRAMS], 3/4W matrix).
C. Advocates for assessments to be
conducted jointly by local and
international health agencies.
A. Locally adapts and executes (or, in the case
of MIRA, supports) data collection, analysis and
reporting so as to deliver public health
information services relevant to needs and risks
identification, including rapid assessment,
HESPER, EWARS, population mortality estimation
and monitoring of violence against health care,
based on GHC global standards and
applications, where appropriate training and
supporting data collection by health partners.
B. Locally adapts and executes HeRAMS and
3/4W matrix data collection, analysis and
reporting, while maintaining an up-to-date list of
health partners, based on GHC global
standards and applications, training and
supporting data collection by health partners.
2. Coordinate analysis to
identify and address
(emerging) risks, gaps,
obstacles, duplication, and
A. Leads and contributes to the joint
interpretation of assessment data, set
against pre-crisis baseline health data,
leading to joint identification of priority
A. Compiles literature searches of pre- and in-
crisis secondary health data, rapid assessment
and other available primary data into a
regularly updated public health situation
1 The GHC Competency Framework domains are taken from the stages of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC), a coordinated series of actions undertaken to help prepare for, manage and deliver humanitarian response. For more
information, please see: www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/programme-cycle/space 2 The GHC Competency Framework competencies are taken from the Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at Country Level, which outlines the basic elements of cluster coordination for field practitioners to help facilitate their work and improve humanitarian outcomes. For more information, please see: https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/coordination/clusters
33
cross-cutting issues. risks and gaps in the health sector
response and agreement on priorities to
inform the development (or adaptation)
of a health sector response strategy.
analysis document, structured as per global
GHC standards.
B. Produces info-graphics, including graph,
maps and dashboards, as required, so as to
illustrate specific aspects of the health situation
Strategic Response
Planning
3. Collaboratively develop
sectoral plans, objectives
and indicators that directly
support realisation of the
HC/HCT strategic priorities.
A. Works closely with the Ministry of
Health and the SAG and other local and
international cluster partners to establish
clear strategic imperatives that support
existing coordination mechanisms and
the delivery of long-term strategic
objectives.
B. Produces purposeful, evidence-based
plans that define life-saving and realistic
priorities and gaps developed in a clear
objective/results which are underlined
with relevant indicators. A detailed
funding plan is mandatory.
n/a
4. Accurately identify
response priorities grounded
in response analysis and
(emerging) public health
information.
A. Work with HC partners on an ongoing
basis to interpret available information,
identify new threats to public health, as
well as emerging or outstanding gaps in
service provision, and decide and follow
through on actions to address these.
B. Represents the Health Cluster in inter-
cluster coordination mechanisms at
country/sub-national level, contribute to
jointly identifying critical issues and
scenarios that require multi-sectoral
A. Maintains EWARS and monitoring violence
against health care data collection systems,
producing regular analyses and bulletins.
34
responses, and plan the relevant
synergistic interventions with the other
clusters concerned.
C. Informs the CLA Representative of
priority gaps that cannot be covered by
any health cluster partner and requires
CLA action as provider of last resort.
5. Ensure effective
contingency planning,
preparedness and capacity
building.
A. Leads joint Health Cluster contingency
planning for potential new events or
setbacks, when required.
B. Continuously monitors the health
situation and inform partners regularly.
C. In a protracted crisis or health sector
recovery context, ensures appropriate
links among humanitarian actions and
longer-term health sector plans,
incorporating the concept of ‘building
back better’ and specific risk reduction
measures.
A. Maintains and updates the public health
situation analysis, introducing secondary data
as they arise, so as to support evidence-based
contingency planning and preparedness.
Resource Mobilisation 6. Clarify funding
requirements, priorities and
cluster contributions for the
HC’s overall humanitarian
funding considerations (e.g.
Flash Appeal, CAP, CERF,
Emergency Response
Fund/Common
Humanitarian Fund)
A. Provides leadership and strategic
direction to Health Cluster Partners in the
development of the health sector
components of FLASH Appeal, CHAP,
CAP and CERF proposals and other
interagency planning, resource
allocation and funding documents.
B. Advocates for local health actors and
joint operations of international and local
A. Produces ad-hoc info graphics as required
to support planning, resource allocation and
funding documents.
35
agencies.
Implementation &
Monitoring
7. Coordinate service
delivery through the
implementation of the
cluster strategy and results,
recommending corrective
action where necessary.
A. Holds regular coordination meetings
with country health cluster partners,
building when possible on existing health
sector coordination forums.
B. Develops and implements mechanisms
to fill gaps and eliminate duplication of
service delivery.
C. Regularly checks implementation
results against set targets.
A. Locally adapts and supports partner
execution of a Health Management
Information System (HMIS), as per GHC global
standards and applications, producing regular
reports, to support monitoring of health system
performance.
B. Designs, executes and reports on
administrative or survey-based estimation of
vaccination coverage.
C. Maintains and produces regular analysis or
bulletins from key information systems (HeRAMS,
3/4W matrix) so as to support monitoring of
health service availability.
8. Promote and ensure
application and adherence
to the Core Humanitarian
Standard and relevant
technical standards and
guidelines3.
A. Promotes application of standards
and best practice by all health cluster
partners to the local context.
B. Promotes the use of the Health Cluster
Guide to ensure the application of
common approaches, tools and
standards.
C Identifies urgent training needs in
relation to technical standards and
protocols for the delivery of key health
services to ensure their adoption and
n/a
3 Any health response should be based on the Core Humanitarian Standard, thereby translating our commitment to improve the effectiveness of humanitarian response and to respect humanitarian standards and principles. For more information, see: www.corehumanitarianstandard.org
36
uniform application by all Health Cluster
partners.
9. Coordinate participation
and engagement with
standard monitoring and
reporting mechanisms such
as Cluster Performance
Management procedures
and other tools.
A. Ensures partners’ active contribution to
and involvement in joint monitoring of
individual and common plans of action
for health interventions; collate and
disseminate this and other information
related to the health sector in Cluster sit-
reps and/or regular Health Bulletins.
B. Links monitoring and reporting to
programmatic responses.
A. Compiles data from multiple sources and
supports the publication of a health cluster
bulletin, as well as an EWARS epidemiological
bulletin, as per GHC global standards and
applications.
B. B. Locally adapts and executes Operational
Indicator Monitoring application of the GHC in
order to collect, analyse and report on key
health performance and service output
indicators for the whole health cluster.
10. Identify advocacy
concerns and undertake
effective advocacy
activities on behalf of cluster
participants and the
affected population.
A. Collects information required to
contribute to HC and HCT messaging
and action.
B. Includes health cluster partners in
advocacy for priority health actions and
changes.
A. Maintains and regularly updates analysis and
reports on attacks against health care.
B. Supports ongoing interpretation of data on
health risks, service availability and
performance in order to correctly identify
advocacy issues and concerns.
Operational Review &
Evaluation
11. Coordinate participation
and engagement with
Operational Peer Review
(OPR)and Evaluation
procedures and activities.
A. Ensures the Health Cluster’s active
contribution to relevant OPR assessment
activities.
B. Translates recommendations of the
OPR into Cluster strategic plan for
implementation.
C. Supports and facilitates possible
evaluation missions.
A. Produces analyses from active data
collection applications and systems, including
ad hoc info-graphics, to support OPR and
evaluations.
37
PERSONAL COMPETENCIES HEALTH CLUSTER COORDINATORS IMO/PHIS OFFICERS
1. Lead, guide and inspire partners, stakeholders
and country CLA to deliver results and impact.
√
2. Actively develop self, others and the Health
Cluster as an integral part of building the Cluster’s
coordination capacity.
√
√
3. Effectively facilitate training events and
workshops, acting as the trainer and/or resource
person as necessary
√ √
4. Work collaboratively and build high performing
teams within a particular context.
√
√
5. Build effective networks with partners and
stakeholders to ensure service delivery.
√
√
6. Demonstrate effective meeting organisation,
management and participation
√
√
7. Speak and write clearly, confidently, accurately,
and with impact for different audiences.
√
√
8. Consistently influence decisions in best interests of
affected populations.
√
9. Ensure the full engagement and participation of
current and new partners and stakeholders.
√
10. Build consensus for effective decision making.
√
38
The WHE Training Task Team compared the GHC personal competency framework with the WHE
personal competency framework and aligned the two frameworks under general thematic areas
for the purpose of the pilot exercise to provide direct personal feedback to participants.
ANNEX 2: PERSONAL COMPETENCIES ASSESSMENT TOOL
39
ANNEX 3: STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH INFORMATION
SERVICES
Please follow link for standards:
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/
phis-standards.pdf
40
ANNEX 4: PARTICIPANT EXPECTATIONS (21 responses)
Tools, standards and processes - 17 expectations
• Mechanisms for emergency funding sources and donors and the procedures for mobilizing emergency funding for health cluster response
in humanitarian emergencies
• Assessments/HeRAMS how to make it more effective in the health cluster work and clear policy on its timeline and implementation
strategy - WHO responsibility or Health Cluster?
• HNO-HRP processes how it can be improved for better planning of humanitarian response.
• Reporting, Information management products standardization - Bulletins, SItreps, annual reports etc.
• Updates guidance, tools and templates: ISAC guidelines/guidance, tools and templates for humanitarian coordination, in particular,
health cluster/sector coordination in humanitarian response context.
• Updates tools and templates for health cluster coordination for health sector emergency response
• How to prepare gender-sensitive proposal (HRP/JRP etc) in initial period when sex-age-disaggregation data not available Better
understanding of PHIS; when to use them, frequency, uses, and desired outcomes.
• Gain a more thorough understanding of technical health (cluster) coordination concepts and approaches, and test and learn to apply
these through a detailed, high-quality SIMEX Group discussion and way forward for mutual indicators for cross sectoral analysis (Health,
Nutrition, Wash etc.)
• Way of Integration of cross sectoral data set on severity indicators
• Management of Secondary dataset through standardize tool kit
• Analysis toolkit for HeRAMS and its correlation with other datasets
• Sector specific assessment tool and DTM dataset integration to get clear monthly progress reporting
• Sector/clusters IMO's experience and challenges during HNO/ HRP and MSNA, SDR.
• Harmonization of existing dataset with cross sectors and cross department (HMIS, DHIS, IDSR, e-Health) to bring on single platform.
• Improve my ability to conduct HNO process in general
• Improve my ability to perform (Local adaptation, data collection and interpretation, used data and results for action) for some PHIS
services as:
➢ Public situation analysis
➢ Rapid assessment
➢ HESPER scale
➢ EWARS
➢ Health Cluster Bulletin
➢ Operational indicator monitoring
• Tools and template on public health risk analysis, needs assessment, strategic risk assessment
41
• To understand public health information standards required for health cluster operation
The Health Cluster - 14 expectations
• Better understanding of the Health Cluster structure, roles, expectations, and outputs
• Better understanding of the global health cluster
• Broader discussion and brainstorming on different issues related to health cluster in different countries
• Harmonization and standardization of health cluster mandate and operations
• Update on Global health cluster TOR, SOPs
• I want to understand the Global Health Cluster Structure and how it works.
• Handling of Critical Health sector/cluster issues
• I would like to come away with a better understanding of the overall positioning of the cluster vis-a-vis WHO. Where and how does the
cluster function as a part of WHO versus independently - particularly with release of information, bulletins, advocacy, etc? What are
reasonable expectations of support from WHO that the clusters can have? How do we navigate lines of authority when they don't work
according to the proscribed guidelines (i.e. who do we go to, what are our support resources, etc)? These issues have come up in other
meetings I've attended, but I don't feel that it's fully resolved in my mind of what is the "real world" position of the cluster with regards to
WHO (since paper versus practice seems to vary).
• I would like to better understand the application of HCC guidelines. Specifically: -
a) What are the reasons why something is called a cluster versus a health sector working group? In Syria specifically, it seems this
decision was made regionally and with some input from OCHA but I've actually never received a clear answer about why Gaziantep is
a Cluster, but Damascus, Jordan and Northeast Syria are sector working groups. So, what are the factors in making this decision? Who
is consulted and who is the final decision-maker?
b) Also, with cluster "membership" - this seems to apply differently across
various clusters even though there are clear definitions of what constitutes a member. Further - what do we do with non-state actors /
ad hoc government in settings where there are not official government entities? Similarly, the issue raised in #1 above comes into play -
WHO as a member of the cluster with respect to its implementation versus your seemingly "neutral" role of HCC often may cause
blurred lines, particularly when there are instances of double-hatting.
• Under agenda item 1.2, addressing the structural relations, constituting for health cluster, among WHO, OCHA, IASC, and other UN
agencies and NGOs, could be an added value to the topic.
• SAG composition/needs
• Definitions of members, partners, donors, etc.
• Health Cluster Exit/Transitional Strategy / NEXUS
42
• Be active member of the GHC and have more opportunities with WHO
Applying and continuing the learning - 8 expectations
• A path for deployment of newly trained health cluster coordinators/ IMOs to further develop skills on the ground
• By end of the training I want make myself prepared to work for any health cluster coordination system.
• Using learning from this course to apply at country level
• Orientation on the technical content for health cluster coordination and hands on exercises to develop skills needed in the field
• To gain experience from desk top exercises and drop in clinics
• To apply the knowledge gained from the training in my country
• Learning how to better organize a simulation exercise in the training, comparing the past experiences of exercises in HELP and UNDAC
courses.
• (Develop) soft skills that are useful in performing the health cluster coordination role
• At the end of the training to be confident on coordinating the health cluster on behalf of the WHO at the country level and conduct
operations as per required global standards
Lessons and good practice - 8 expectations
• Lessons and best practices and challenges in health sector/cluster coordination in different types of humanitarian emergencies.
• Refreshing my knowledge and understanding of disaster management and response by learning the most up-to-date and evidence-
based information and skills from the course and hearing lessons learned from past experiences
• To share experience with colleagues from GHC and other countries.
• Experience sharing, and lessons learnt from sticky situations in health cluster coordination from previous emergencies WHO has responded
to
• Exchange experiences with other participants regarding their current practices in relation to some topics addressed during the training
(interactive approach). Interaction with WHO and MoH participants who are currently leading health clusters in refugee related
humanitarian settings versus natural hazard related settings with only IDPs to compare notes with my experience and learn.
• Insights and sharing of practices on the mechanisms available for coordination of partners in countries which do not fully endorse the IASC
cluster system,
• To share the experience and lessons learnt in the part response in public health emergencies and outbreaks of diseases.
• Sharing experiences with/from other countries
Coordination Challenges and Issues – 7 expectations
• Challenges in Coordination and how to overcome (want to know some common challenges of health cluster coordination, EMT
Coordination and other coordination cells)
• On a global level, it seems humanitarian principles are being increasingly tested and often watered down in complex emergencies like
Syria, Gaza, and Yemen. How are we navigating this from the HCC perspective? Can we look at specific case examples of political
43
challenges to upholding humanitarian principles and the right to health and how we have successfully and unsuccessfully responded
(perhaps in the simulation)?
• I want to know the important components of Health Cluster Coordination
• Emergency medical team coordination and WHO CO IMS Would like to learn about how the fairly new WHO Incident Management
System is subsuming and facilitating the functioning of the more established Health Cluster system? What are the best practices and what
are the challenges and tensions from the ground?
• EOC functions in emergencies and IMO’s role to facilitate stakeholders
• EOC operations how it links or work with the existing Health Cluster architecture.
• As for the situation in Syria: the LNGOs have taken many tasks which were previously functions of the Ministries. I want to have among the
trainings, how to reduce reliance on NGOs in providing health services and other services and do not get a gap in services at the present
time.
• To acquire basic knowledge a country focal point requires in relation to health cluster and its coordination
Understanding the role of the HCC – 5 expectations
• Role/place of the health cluster coordinator in WHE structure and clear lines of responsibilities
• Further UNDERSTAND the role of HCC as WHO (agency staff member) to serve as HCC for the CLA for Health i.e. WHO, since HCC is
responsible for facilitating and coordinating the engagement of all health partners including WHO in countries
• Clarify Role of HCC in the context or New Ways of Working (NWOW), Humanitarian Development and Peace Nexus (HDPN) and Collective
Outcomes (COs)
• Further UNDERSTAND the role of HCC in Inter-cluster coordination mechanism.
• Review Country HC ToRs, adaptation? have a better understanding of support modalities by the GHC to coordinators operating in the
field.
Networking - 4 expectations
• Knowing people who work for 'disaster management and response' in WHO and developing a network for future collaboration and
coordination in disaster management and response.
• Meet with experts and peers to share knowledge, experiences, and advice
• Get to know key counterparts in other areas of WHO and the world
• To establish network with other colleagues in the health emergency response that is in favour of knowledge, skill and Human Resource
sharing during events.
Inter Cluster/Partner Coordination – 2 expectations
• Inter cluster coordination specially with WASH during cholera outbreak, Nutrition cluster treatment of SAM cases
44
• To learn the key skills on health cluster coordination that are applicable in the field when response to events that need multiple partners’
joint response
Plus
Added value in the existing health cluster response like GBV, Cash, AAP, etc.
Advocacy / resource mobilization within the health cluster work
Relationship between Cash Transfer Programme and Health Cluster Response in Emergencies (give money to the disaster-affected people to
buy drugs is not a good thing which may create Anti-Microbial Resistance, on the other hand health care service is totally free for the affected
people)
45
ANNEX 5: FINAL PARTICIPANTS EVALUATION OF WHOLE TRAINING Role Team Overall
rating
Why have you
given this rating?
What are your key
Learnings from this
training
Which 5 sessions or
learning activities
contributed most to
your learning and
development?
Why did you
choose these
sessions/activities?
(Optional)
Were any critical themes
missing, or inadequately
addressed, in this
training? If yes, which
ones? (Optional)
In addition to
learning about
Health Cluster
Coordination, what
else have you
gained from
participating in this
training?
Do you have any other
comments about this
training, or how we
could improve future
trainings?
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Alpha 3 Because I feel it
was good ;)
Exposure to Health
Cluster
Coordination
guidance,
documents and
tools
Heard from other
country and
settings
experiences in
HCC
Session 2.1 c): EWAR
Session 2.2: Needs
assessment and
analysis: Public Health
indicators and
secondary data
analysis (PHSA)
Session 3.1: HeRAMS
Session 3.2:
Humanitarian Needs
Overview (HNO)
Session 5.2 - 5.3:
Resource Mobilization
Most relevant to
my work
Emergency situations
where Health Clusters
not formally activated.
Not L3 events
Established
relationships with
HQ level for further
support at country
level
Allow for one day
break
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Alpha 4 The duration is
perfect, and the
training is followed
by SIMEX which
covered all
aspects of HPC
Personal Health
Cluster
deployment as a
team and
interactions etc.
Refreshed all
aspects of HPC in
term of guidance
notes and
practical exercises
Accountability to
Affected Populations
(AAP); Needs
assessment and
analysis: Public Health
indicators and
secondary data
analysis (PHSA);
Communicable disease
Alerts: GOARN
response; Resource
Mobilization;
Emergency Medical
Teams
These sessions
helped me to get
further clarity of
my role as HCC
I personally feel, more
practical examples for
the session on HNO
process and
Preparedness,
Contingency planning
(PPE), looking at the
different level of
understating of
Participants
I have learnt a lot
during discussions
I personally feel, GHC
require to organize a
two or three days
workshop inviting
WCOs inviting both
WCO WHE and the
dedicated HCC to
clarify the roles of both
positions
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Alpha 4 All the theory
sessions with
excellent
facilitation and
presentation. The
practical learning
through the SIMEX-
all very useful for
health cluster
work.
All the sessions from
day one to day 9
with simulation
exercise were
equally important
and valuable, and
I will try to use in
the health cluster
work.
Session 1.1: Updates
from the Global Level
Session 1.2: Health
Cluster Coordination
Overview – Critical
Health Cluster
Coordination Issues.
4.3: Humanitarian
Response Planning.
Session 2.2: Needs
These are the most
relevant topics
and areas for day
to day cluster
work.
Very comprehensive
training and so many
themes covered. It
would not be possible to
have additional themes
and topics included
within this period of time.
Knowing so many
colleagues and
friends. An
opportunity for
networking.
Overall an excellent
organization,
facilitation and
management of the
training.
46
assessment and
analysis: Public Health
indicators and
secondary data
analysis (PHSA)
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Alpha 3 It was good
overall; nice
balance of
knowledge and
experience
sharing from peers
and facilitators
and exercises
including group
work and
simulation;
opportunities for
more in-depth
discussion through
clinics and the
consistent attempt
at providing
feedback to the
teams and
individual
Participants. I did
not score it
excellent sine
there are clear
opportunities for
improvement!
1. Opportunity to
systematically go
through the entire
humanitarian
programme cycle
sequentially with
the right amount of
knowledge base
refreshing,
interaction,
experience sharing
and exercises to
bring home the key
points
2. Opportunity to
learn more about
the manner in
which conflict
related complex
and protracted
emergencies are
managed - an
area in which I
have relatively less
experience
3. Discussions on
some of the newer
topics such as AAP,
Cash modalities,
Attacks on health
services; public
health information
frameworks and
tools being
developed; cross
cutting issues;
standby
partnership
arrangements; and
leadership /
interpersonal
interaction "soft"
competencies
Session 1.3 a:
Accountability to
Affected Populations
(AAP)
Session 2.1 a): Public
Health Information
Services (PHIS)
standards
Session 3.1: HeRAMS
Session 3.3 a): Cross-
cutting issues
Session 3.4: Health
Cluster Coordinators -
Humanitarian
Development Nexus
capacity building
Session 4.1: CASH
programming
Clinic: Collaborative
Leadership & Team
building
Clinic: AAP
Clinic: Coordination
challenges
These were
relatively newer
topic for me in
terms of aligning
my thinking and
perspectives on
these issues with
what is going on in
the humanitarian
arena and
especially the
official
organizational
perspectives
The inter- relation and
harmonization of the
planning cycles and
plans - ERP, HRP,
Contingency Planning
and BCP was quite
inadequate and would
need much more clarity
in thinking, interrogation
of concepts and
presentation with
authentic expertise
2. Harmonizing the
Public Health
Emergencies /
International Concern as
per IHR and the Natural
Hazards / Complex
emergencies
management concepts
and approaches; the
WHO Incident
Management System
and the Cluster based
management
approach; region and
context specific
iterations of the cluster
management versus
other humanitarian
coordination
approaches
Deliberate
engagement with
and reflection on
the soft skills /
competencies
needed for
functioning as a
HCC / high
performing team;
networking with
peers and
facilitators; learning
from the different,
varied and rich
experiences and
perspectives of
peers and
facilitators
Harmonization of
concepts and
approaches as per
WHE reform;
Breakfast options was
completely
monotonous
throughout the training
period - I am more
used to variety since it
is the major meal for
me!
47
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Alpha 4 I learnt a lot from
experienced
trainers, facilitators
and other
participants on
health cluster
coordination.
I have learnt how
to prepare for
donor meetings,
how to produce
relevant
documents (SitRep,
HNO, Flash Appeal,
HRP, Health Cluster
Bulletin etc.), How
to communicate
with different
actors (MoH, Ngo
Communities and
other UN
agencies).
Session 1.1: Updates
from the Global Level;
Session 1.2: Health
Cluster Coordination
Overview – Critical
Health Cluster
Coordination Issues;
Session 2.1 b): Needs
Assessment and
Analysis: What
information is needed;
Session 5.2 - 5.3:
Resource Mobilization
and Session 6.4: Cluster
Coordination
Performance
Monitoring (CCPM)
Very relevant with
my country level
cluster activities
Health EOC, Civil Military
Coordination and Risk
Communication
How to handle
donor community,
Cluster
Coordination
Performance
Monitoring, Working
experience with
new team members
with a new type of
situations in SIMEX
(Conflict, Disease
Outbreak)
Scenario should be
changed. It would be
better if we select
natural disaster and it
should be focused on
Health EOC, EMT
deployment, Civil
Military Coordination
etc.
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Alpha 4 I developed
myself much in
terms of my
knowledge
attitudes as well as
skills. Also learnt
much on
conducting
training programs
The HC functions
and challenges in
different settings
More on
humanitarian
principles and
practices
Information
products related to
HC
1.2
2.1
3.1
4.1
4.2
Some aspects
were new e.g.
cash program
Very interesting
especially the
discussions around
it
More on leadership
maybe as it is critical
I learnt so much
about the different
contexts colleagues
are working in
It’s great. I really wish
there would be a good
training like this on
leadership
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Bravo 3 The training
covered majority
of what I had
expected,
however some
topics were basic
and took too
much time!
Have a better idea
about the role of
the cluster, and
sharing
experiences with
participants from
all over the world
Session 1.3 a:
Accountability to
Affected Populations
(AAP)
Session 1.4:
Collaborative
Leadership - Styles
Reflection Group
Session 2.2: Needs
assessment and
analysis: Public Health
indicators and
secondary data
analysis (PHSA)
Session 5.1:
Humanitarian response
Monitoring
Session 5.2 - 5.3:
Resource Mobilization
Sessions were
practical more
than theoretical
\- Sharing information \-
48
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Bravo 2 Based on the
overall sessions,
content, trainers,
use of time
HNO, HRP,
HeRams, and cash
programming, HDN
and that ultimately
there is no right
answer by the
book, it’s about
assessing what’s
most relevant and
useful for the
emergency
content one is in
2.1 A thru c; 2.2; 3.4;4.1 Best content and
best presenter and
new information
A network of
colleagues around
the world to reach
out to, actually
performing similar
tasks. And often this
wealth of
experience is even
more useful and
relevant than
reaching out to HQ
Choose a different
location if possible
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Bravo 4 Good balance
between
mentoring and
SIMEX activities -
between learning
and practice
Moving forward in
changing
environment
PHSA, Gabriel's clinic,
HNO, HDN, HeRAMS
Most professionally
done and
interesting
PPE could be done
better
Importance of
teamworking
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Bravo 3 Much of my
expectations were
met
I can understand
PIN and donor
relations
All They are all very
important
Costing of the plans Shared experience
and networking
Would like to be
involved in future
training
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Bravo 4 Content was
good and had
good
coordination from
the team
Key cluster
deliverables,
working in HPC
cycle, information
and assessment
3.2 and 1.2, 6.4 \- there were the
areas I needed to
learn more
HIV \-Team work, donor
engagement
Public
Health
System
Information
Officer
Charlie 4 Very good course,
well designed and
delivered by
experts.
Health Cluster
coordination,
HeRAMS, RRA, HRP,
Needs Assessment,
Group Exercises,
SIMEX- practical
scenario-based
learning.
2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 6.4 Learning from peer -
diverse group
coming from
different
background and
working settings
Thank you for
organizing this Global
level learning/training
programme, and
opportunity for us
working in developing
& low resource setting.
Looking forward to
having such training in
future, particularly a
separate IMO training
course using tools and
technology.
49
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Charlie 2 While it was
necessarily
comprehensive for
persons new to
the role of HCC,
for those already
in the position,
much of it was
very redundant. It
would have been
nice to have the
opportunity to
either complete
other related,
advance courses
online OR involve
more seasoned
HCCs in
presentations to
help develop our
skills as
trainers/facilitators.
Overall, the most
helpful was to
bolster my learning
around M&E and
also understand
what resources are
available through
other pathways:
1. Appreciated the
Needs Analysis
(2.2) session as well
as the
Humanitarian
Response
Monitoring (5.1) as
this is an area I'm
less strong in.
2. HeRAMS session
was very grounded
in practical
application. Really
appreciated the
"real world
application"
aspect of this
session"
3. Learning about
GOARN and the
kind of resources
they offer was also
super helpful.
2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 6.3a Please see answer
in #6
1. How to leverage
iMMAP
2. More practice likely
needed for folks around
navigating the
OCHA/Inter cluster
space which is *QUITE*
political
3. Similarly, how to
navigate the reality of
WHO politics (vis-a-vis
the WR, WCO team, IMS,
etc who are often far
more difficult than
actors)
4. Consensus
building/conflict
mediation
Appreciated the
change to meet
and network with
folks from other
country settings and
also the HQ
counterparts for
things like PHIS.
1. The evaluation
portion of the SIMEX
needs a complete
overhaul
2. Have advanced
options for those who
are already well-versed
in certain topics (like
HNO/HRP)
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Charlie 4 It was a good
opportunity for
learning,
networking and
exchanging
experience
Cash
programming,
Emergency
Medical Teams,
GOARN and
information
management
I did not attend clinics
as I had to catch up
with some competing
priorities from the
country office and we
were instructed to
dedicate our daytime
for the training course
1.1; 1.3; 2.1; 4.1
and 6.1
It would have been
good if risk
communication were
included in the course.
Communication that
includes bulletins, press
releases, sitreps, etc.
I have networked
with brilliant
colleagues from
different regions, it
was all fun with
networking and
learning exercises.
The training was good,
days were long and
exhausted. It is the
longest single training
that I have ever
attended. We could
probably shorten the
number of days and
focus on gaps. The
training was
comprehensive and
had basic and
advanced elements
that have prolonged
the number of days.
50
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Charlie 4 good exercise to
manage the such
emergency
Team work, division
of the tasks.
Accountability to
Affected Populations
(AAP)
CASH programming
no no CASH programming no
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Charlie 3 I think the training
was well
organized and the
facilitators were
very engaging. I
have also learned
a lot from other
peers. However,
the training was
somewhat quite
long, especially on
the presentation.
I have mentioned
this in the
evaluation of
SIMEX.
Session 6.2:
Preparedness,
Contingency planning
(PPE)
Session 2.2: Needs
assessment and
analysis: Public Health
indicators and
secondary data
analysis (PHSA)
Session 4.2 – 4.3:
Humanitarian Response
Planning
Session 2.1 a): Public
Health Information
Services (PHIS)
standards
Session 3.1: HeRAMS
Session 3.2:
Humanitarian Needs
Overview (HNO)
networking Make the presentations
more concise and
dedicate more time for
desktop exercises and.
SIMEX
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Charlie 4 It is practical,
informative,
exceeded
expectations and
applicable in
routine work
WHO role in the
health cluster, how
clusters are run in
different regions,
experience of
facilitators and
participants, soft
skills needed for a
HCCT
2.1 (all) 2.2,2.3,3.2,4.2-
4.3
Technically
relevant,
practically
applicable,
content wise rich,
facilitation was
superb
Enough for this course Different styles of
different regions,
experience of other
professionals and
need of using
expertise in multiple
areas in HC
coordination
Develop a e learn
platform and keep the
Moodle accessible for
participants to refer
materials
Public
Health
System
Information
Officer
Charlie 3 It was a very good
opportunity for me
to learn about the
whole health
cluster
coordination and
do the SIMEX.
Team bonding and
leadership was
something that I
learn from my
colleagues. SIMEX
helps me to have
the experience to
work in an intense
situation.
1.3; 3.1; 4.1; 2.4 & 6.2 These sessions
were not familiar
to me and I learnt
a lot.
I have learnt a lot
from my colleagues
There should be more
capacity building
session during the
training and I haven’t
seen any. It was a long
train day training we
could have also build
our skills in these times.
51
Public
Health
System
Information
Officer
Delta 3 to strengthen my
knowledge with all
Health Cluster's
related info
I learned huge
information which
could lead me to
better work-related
aspects and
career path vision
2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2,4.4, 5.1,
3.3
I found that I had
experience in such
field and the
information was
clear enough for
me to give my
analysis to the
situation and the
information.
the overall picture on
how to connect all
these themes in order to
complete the needed
achievements (one big
puzzle)
That I have the
capability and
knowledge,
although I am
working in WHO
since a year, to do
more than IMO,
and to contribute
more in many
related fields of HC.
less lectures' timing and
more exercises
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Delta 2 The best part of
this training was
unable to meet
with wonderful
colleagues from
all over the world.
Their knowledge
and experiences
were impressive,
and I really
appreciated and
enjoyed talking.
As for the training,
it was good to
learn a couple of
new tools to use in
disaster.
Meeting with
global colleagues
1.3, 1.4, 4.1, 6.1 a&b, 6.3
a&b
Informative and
interesting
lectures, well-
structured slides
Missing the session of
sharing field experiences
and participatory and
problem-solving style of
lectures
Meeting and
knowing wonderful
colleagues working
for Health Cluster
The training organizer
should carefully plan
and clarify objectives
and outcomes of the
training, and select
appropriate
participants based on
the objectives. It is
better to introduce
more innovative style
of training for the sake
of the best use of
money and time to
advocate HC system
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Delta 3 This was very
relevant; the
facilitators were
excellent, and the
contents were
also relevant to
our areas of work
I personally had
chance to not only
learn but could use
the practically in
the simulation
exercise for
example, planning
process,
developing flash
appeals, JC
bulletin
All the sessions were
relevant, but HNO,
cluster coordination,
inter cluster
coordination, desktop
exercise,
communicable
diseases, contingency
planning.
These are more
relevant, and I am
dealing with it
more than others
Practical session need
assessment, using the
tools for example using
MIRA
Lots of practical
experience from
colleagues who
had experiences of
a variety of
emergency
responses
Generally, I enjoyed
the training, taking
something from the
training, expanded
relationships with the
colleagues from other
regions which will help
us sharing of
information and
experiences in the
future as well.
52
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Delta 4 Real life situations
and pressure.
Feedback process
HNO
Flash appeal
Meeting with
government
Teamwork
Leadership
Mentoring
1.4
2.1
3.2
4.3
5.3
Already
mentioned
Coordination and
expected TOR towards
Manager
Mentioned already Nothing significant
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Delta 3 I am pleased to
practice the
standard
templates during
the simulation
exercise and
group work.
I contributed my
technical insight in
preparation of
flash appeal and
public health
situation analysis
during the SIMEX. I
made a
presentation for
HRP during the
group work. I
believe I provided
some good
contribution in the
meeting with MoHS
and the donors
group during the
SIMEX.
Section 3.4;5.1;5.2;
6.1;6.3;
These sessions
provided new
knowledge to me.
There is no perfect
health cluster.
Communication is
important for a
health cluster
coordinator.
Health cluster team
needs good support
from WHO country
office. The future
trainings could be
improved by
integrating some
helpful topic on how
health cluster will link to
incident management
system of WHO.
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Delta 3 The theory part
was too slow and
took too long
Networking,
exchange
experiences
1.1
Cash
HeRAMS
New information
that I could not
access before
Role of regional
partnership officers
How to select/engage
members, partners HCC,
roles, responsibilities,
accountabilities
Meet peers No
Health
Cluster
Coordinator
Delta 4 The trainers are
really trained,
ready and prompt
to deliver their
knowledge to the
trainees. They
were able to
respond to any
question asked by
a trainee. The
atmosphere was
very friendly
Patience to
listening other even
what they are
saying is not totally
true. AAP. How to
deal with donors
during a meeting
Clinic 1.3.a: AAP Because,
sometimes we are
not on the fields
with the affected
population and it
is the partners who
are giving us the
feedback: the
population wants
this or that.
When a proposal like
flash appeal project is
accepted and funded,
sometimes it is a
headache with the
award issues and one or
two months will passed
before we start the
project. Luckily, we have
the CFE.
Groupe work under
pressure. To receive
with patience what
the colleague is
saying and then
comment after he
finished to talk.
The training was good
but too much sugar in
the refreshments
53
ANNEX 5: PARTICIPANTS DAILY EVALUATIONS DAYS 1 – 6
Which Sessions contributed most to your Learning?
54
How will you use this learning in your work?
A visual summary of Participants feedback about using their learning from Days 1 to 6 and the
Final Evaluation showing that most Participants were actively reflecting on how they could apply
their learning about the Health Cluster in their work at national and sub national level.
Additional Participant Feedback from Days 1 – 6
The detailed feedback for each session was shared with the whole Training Team as the training
ran and will be kept by the GHCU for future reference.
Day Positive Constructive 1 • Opportunities to network with
colleagues – Participants and
Training Team
• Participants enjoyed the practical
learning activities
• Good timekeeping and keeping
to the agenda
• Have shorter power point presentation and
allow more time for discussion and sharing of
field experience
• Give more concrete examples
• Share case studies from other contexts
• Keep discussion on track and focussed
• Improve timekeeping
2 • Very informative sessions
• More interactive and practical
• Sessions on PHIS and PHSA very
useful
• Very relevant to the field
• Allow more time for practical exercises
• Some of the sessions were too short
• Have more technical sessions for IMOs
• Food good, but too much sugar during breaks
• Build in some time off for Participants
3 • Practical sessions continue to be
appreciated
• First and last sessions very good
(HeRAMS and
Humanitarian/Development
Nexus)
• Sharing experience from L3
countries
• “Warm Facilitators
• Overall a good day
• Share learning objectives with the Participants
• Some sessions are too long and can become
boring
• Vary the Presenters
• Ensure sessions are updated
• Some questions from the Participants too long –
Trainers and Facilitators should control this more
4 • Group exercises are good – lets
have more of them
• Enjoyed the interaction with
colleagues and the lively and
“heated” debate and discussions
• Ensure time for Q&A at the end of all sessions
• Ensure all Participants have done the pre-
reading
• Have more energisers and lively presenters
• Provide more prep for SIMEX
• Have more on acute and chronic
emergencies in non-conflict contexts
5 • Interactive sessions and group
work are “great”
• Enthusiasms of Presenters
• CEFF session very good and useful
• An excellent day and I learnt a lot
• “Keep it up”
• Improve the use of the microphone
• Have faster presentation of some of the power
points
• Allow more time for the CERF exercise
• Have shorter breaks
6 • GOARN session was good
• Appreciated more time for Q&A
and discussion
• Clear sessions
• Good to have a training summary
at the end of the day
• Some sessions too didactic and needed to be
more focussed
• Give more time to some of the sessions and
allow more time for group work
• Review the session on Contingency Planning
• Provide a glossary of terms and acronyms
55
ANNEX 6: PARTICIPANTS FEEDBACK FROM THE SIMEX
Ro
le
Tea
m
The
SIME
X
met
my
exp
ecta
tions
Facilit
ation
was
effect
ive
Logist
ical
set
up
was
appr
opria
te
Refere
nce
materi
als
were
releva
nt
Conte
nts
were
releva
nt
Debrie
fing
was
effecti
ve
Durati
on of
the
SIMEX
was
about
right
The
pace
of the
SIMEX
was
about
right
Durati
on of
the
debrie
fing
was
about
right
My key learnings
were…
Suggested improvements Other comments
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Alp
ha
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Too
slo
w
Ju
st f
ine
Managing
emergency
response
requirements with
a diverse team in
terms of
background and
experience
Have a smaller team, for
some phases there was not
enough to do for everyone
None
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
t
or
Alp
ha
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
My understanding
of the functions of
the HC and the
HCC
None None
He
alth
Clu
ste
r C
oo
rdin
ato
r
Alp
ha
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Team work is
crucial as we do
apply as HCC
during our day-to-
day work which
was demonstrated
during simulations
Not really, it was perfect Excellently organized by a
team of our professional
colleagues
56
He
alth
Clu
ste
r C
oo
rdin
ato
r
Alp
ha
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
"1. The sequential
progression of the
humanitarian
programming
cycle and the
different actions
and products that
are expected of
the health cluster
1. Smaller size groups (max
5) to provide more
opportunities for all
members to take on the
critical roles and also to
induce more urgency since
this would better mimic
real-life situation
2. Opportunity in at least a
few interaction sessions for
the key actors to be able
to show alternate ways of
managing the situation /
approaching the
interaction rather than
being provided feedback
on a single attempt even if
that could be the default
mode of action /
interaction of the individual
I am firmly of the view that the
opportunity to simultaneously
simulate the activation of the
WHE Incident Management
System given that the teams
were large was completely
missed. This reiterates and
reinforces the "silo"
approaches at emergency
management - cluster, WHO
incident management team,
EMT-CC etc functioning
almost as if they are
standalone entities - that I
"presume" the ongoing WHE
emergency management
reform seeks to address!
He
alth
Clu
ste
r C
oo
rdin
ato
r
Alp
ha
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Too
lon
g
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
I have learnt (1)
how to prepare
presentation, how
to handle them in
donor meeting, (2)
what kind of
materials (Need
assessment,
situation report,
flash appeal, HNO,
PHSA etc.) need to
be produced
during emergency
time.
From cluster perspective,
natural disaster (Flood,
Cyclone or Earthquake)
would be fine instead of
man-made disaster
(conflict, disease
outbreak).
HEOC, Civil Military
Coordination, EMT could be
added with the scenario
rather than GOARN.
57
He
alth
Clu
ste
r C
oo
rdin
ato
r
Alp
ha
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Global updates,
EPRP, contingency
planning, EWARNS,
health cluster
coordination tools,
assessment, flash
appeal, HNO,
GOARN
mobilization,
practical skills
through SIMEX,
accountability,
HeRAMS, and
several other
sessions were very
useful.
It was excellent simulation. Organization including all
logistics - accommodations,
travel, food, facilitation all
aspects of the HCC training
have been an excellent.
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Bra
vo
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Too
lon
g
Too
fa
st
Ju
st f
ine
I learnt a lot in IM,
HNO process,
working with
OCHA, HERAMs
Importance to
health cluster work,
team work
spacing in information
flow, the scenario to be
read well in advance
Good training and well
organised
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Bra
vo
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Too
sh
ort
Debriefing process
was somehow
short but was
effective as it was
directly after the
end of each task
To search for new
scenarios from participants
experiences
.
Pu
blic
He
alth
Info
rma
tio
n
Se
rvic
es
Off
ice
r
Bra
vo
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Too
lon
g
Too
slo
w
Ju
st f
ine
Communication
skills, team work,
and donor
approaching
More interaction between
the facilitators and trainees
58
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Bra
vo
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Information flow
within HCC
mechanism
Specific roles should be
assigned to each
participant in the group
H
ea
lth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Bra
vo
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Too
sh
ort
Too
fa
st
Too
sh
ort
Partnership donor
relationship and
PIN
More time for SIMEX Grateful for the chance to
attend
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Bra
vo
So
me
wh
at
dis
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
dis
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Too
sh
ort
Ju
st f
ine
Too
lon
g
The simulation
exercise was the
most useful part of
the training
Could have had more
deliverables that were
hands on, beyond just
products
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
t
or
Bra
vo
So
me
wh
a
t a
gre
e
So
me
wh
a
t a
gre
e
So
me
wh
a
t a
gre
e
So
me
wh
a
t a
gre
e
So
me
wh
a
t a
gre
e
So
me
wh
a
t a
gre
e
Ju
st f
ine
Too
slo
w
Ju
st f
ine
na na na
Pu
blic
He
alth
Info
rma
tio
n
Se
rvic
es
Off
ice
r
Ch
arlie
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Able to learn
knowledge in
coordination and
time management
and task division
among the team.
Some short field exercise
(outside of hotel - open
ground or in a tent)
None
Pu
blic
He
alth
Info
rma
tio
n
Se
rvic
es
Off
ice
r
Bra
vo
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Too
lon
g
Too
slo
w
Ju
st f
ine
Communication
skills, team work,
and donor
approaching
More interaction between
the facilitators and trainees
59
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Bra
vo
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Information flow
within HCC
mechanism
Specific roles should be
assigned to each
participant in the group
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
t
or
Bra
vo
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Too
sh
ort
Too
fa
st
Too
sh
ort
Partnership donor
relationship and
PIN
More time for SIMEX Grateful for the chance to
attend
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Bra
vo
So
me
wh
at
dis
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
dis
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Too
sh
ort
Ju
st f
ine
Too
lon
g
The simulation
exercise was the
most useful part of
the training
Could have had more
deliverables that were
hands on, beyond just
products
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Bra
vo
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Too
slo
w
Ju
st f
ine
na na na
Pu
blic
He
alth
Info
rma
tio
n
Se
rvic
es
Off
ice
r
Ch
arlie
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Able to learn
knowledge in
coordination and
time management
and task division
among the team.
Some short field exercise
(outside of hotel - open
ground or in a tent)
None
60
He
alth
Clu
ste
r C
oo
rdin
ato
r
Ch
arlie
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
The most relevant
parts were
a) seeing how
other colleagues
thinking process
worked and how
their prioritized
various
motives/informatio
n
b) being pushed
by non-
cooperative
counterparts in
MOH/local
authorities/local
leaders and trying
to work around
that
1. Assign roles
2. Do some rotation within
the teams and/or late
arrival of some colleagues
(as if more people are
being deployed to the
emergency)
3. Include barriers WITHIN
WHO (like WR disagreeing
with you or EOC/IMS
excluding you)
4. Be clearer from the start
if folks should abide by the
ACTUAL ROLE of the HCC
and therefore execute key
tasks even without being
asked -OR- if they should
wait to be prompted for
specific deliverables.
We can see that a lot of effort
and time went into preparing
this training. Thank you for the
investment and the sincerity
of all of the facilitators and
supports - there was a lot of
respect shown for our
learning.
He
alth
Clu
ste
r C
oo
rdin
ato
r
Ch
arlie
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
The simulation was
an opportunity to
share field
experience with
other colleagues.
Team members
came from
different
experiences and
some of them had
no emergency
experience or are
new to the context
of emergency. It
was a fun time to
exchange and
support each
other. A key
learning item for
me during the
exercise was IM
and EWARS part as
I am not expert in
these two fields.
I think it would be good to
consistent when giving
feedback to trainees.
Sometimes there were
some inconsistencies
between the debriefing
team. Feedback was
mostly on the areas of
gaps and little attention
was paid to the positive
side. But in fact, this
depended on the person
who was giving the
feedback.
N/A
61
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Ch
arlie
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Too
sh
ort
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Team work, and
leadership
more time for the exercise \- H
ea
lth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Ch
arlie
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
I have learned
both hard and soft
skills from the SIMEX
However, I may
need to reflect on
the skills I have
learned from the
whole training and
apply to my daily
work.
If possible, shorten the
presentation and extend a
bit more on SIMEX.
NA
He
alth
Clu
ste
r C
oo
rdin
ato
r
Ch
arlie
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
The simulation was
an opportunity to
share field
experience with
other colleagues.
Team members
came from
different
experiences and
some of them had
no emergency
experience or are
new to the context
of emergency. It
was a fun time to
exchange and
support each
other. A key
learning item for
me during the
exercise was IM
and EWARS part as
I am not expert in
these two fields.
I think it would be good to
consistent when giving
feedback to trainees.
Sometimes there were
some inconsistencies
between the debriefing
team. Feedback was
mostly on the areas of
gaps and little attention
was paid to the positive
side. But in fact, this
depended on the person
who was giving the
feedback.
N/A
62
Pu
blic
He
alth
Info
rma
tio
n
Se
rvic
es
Off
ice
r
Ch
arlie
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
"1. Team building
and work under
different leadership
H
ea
lth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
Ch
arlie
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Too
sh
ort
Too
fa
st
Ju
st f
ine
"Team work.
Pu
blic
He
alth
In
form
atio
n S
erv
ice
s O
ffic
er
De
lta
So
me
wh
at
dis
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
dis
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Too
fa
st
Ju
st f
ine
to work under
pressure with a
team is my strength
key element,
which I improved
it, especially
dealing with Health
Emergency Plans,
reports, analysis. all
were clear to me
but I didn't get the
chance in most of
the time during the
simulation to
practice my
knowledge and
my capacity to
deliver.
Better briefing about how it
would go. The seniors in
each group to give the
group more space to
deliver, work and give
opinions in order to learn.
I am wondering if you can
provide us with information on
how to be registered in the
health cluster roster for any
future good and better work
opportunities.
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
De
lta
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Too
sh
ort
Too
fa
st
Ju
st f
ine
\-Went through
the planning
process
- had the
opportunity to
work on HC bulletin
\- too many people in the
group, so everyone did not
have the chance to lead
the team-
generally, I found the
simulation a very recap of all
the training sessions and how
to practically apply them.
63
Pu
blic
He
alth
In
form
atio
n S
erv
ice
s O
ffic
er
De
lta
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Although I have
gone through
many real
emergency
situations. But in this
simulation my
concepts are very
clear for team
work, leadership,
sequence of work
and more
cooperation with
coordinator for
better outcome.
However, I can
confidently
provide backup
support for
coordination work
during
coordinator's
leave, R&R or
contract break
period.
I think simulation is
comprehensive enough
H
ea
lth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
De
lta
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
There is no perfect
health cluster in
the world. I
recognize the
need to improve
my
communication
skill and I will put
my best effort to
improve
communication.
This simulation could be
better in explaining the
process before it started.
I am very glad to learn from
GHC team in Geneva and to
share experience among the
colleagues from all the
regions.
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
De
lta
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Able to effectively
coach and
encourage others
No No
64
He
alth
Clu
ste
r
Co
ord
ina
tor
De
lta
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Too
sh
ort
Too
fa
st
Ju
st f
ine
Work under
pressure- the time
to response to an
email with an
appropriate
response, another
request is injected.
Donors meeting is
very important
(how to deal with
donors)
Give more time not to
large but adequately
H
ea
lth
Clu
ste
r C
oo
rdin
ato
r
De
lta
So
me
wh
at
dis
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
dis
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
Too
sh
ort
Ju
st f
ine
Ju
st f
ine
Challenges and
excitements to
work with
multicultural
people with
different
background and
cultures for
achieving one
goal. This training
was as if
experiencing the
coordination
challenges of the
health cluster in
the real world.
The team composition
could be more thoughtful
based the participants
background. The team
dynamics affects the
modality of working and
produced results.
Facilitators can be a bit more
culturally sensitive especially
to evaluate the participants.
Communication skill is very
subjective. The facilitators
should be a good listener, not
a talking or persuading the
norm what they consider
standard.
Pu
blic
He
alth
Info
rma
tio
n S
erv
ice
s
Off
ice
r
De
lta
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
ag
ree
So
me
wh
at
dis
ag
ree
Too
lon
g
Too
slo
w
Too
lon
g
SIMEX is a role
playing, if you are
advising to restrain
your capacities as
a coordinator, I
assumed you
cannot have a real
competencies
evaluation.
Advocacy: Clearly define
the advocacy in terms of
the health cluster (health
issues advocacy) instead
been generic and not able
to properly communicate
the advocacy role of the
cluster.
Use the PHC as the working
base for all presentations.
(Tools, products, functions, etc
against the cycle)!
65
ANNEX 7: FEEDBACK FROM THE TRAINING TEAM ON LINE SURVEY
The purpose of the survey was to inform decisions about the development and strengthening of future direct training. Fourteen members of the
twenty-four members of the Training Team completed the survey by 4 December 2018.
Training Team Member Role Overall
what
rating
would
you give
to this
training?
What are your
thoughts on how
your session went
and what changes
you would make
(if any) to future
similar sessions?
What are your
thoughts on how the
SIMEX went and how
it could be further
developed and
strengthened?
With regard to future
direct training what do
you recommend we
should retain/keep the
same?
With regard to future
direct training what do
you recommend we
should change, add or
strengthen?
Do you have any
other feedback
about the planning,
preparation and
delivery of the
training which took
place 21 – 29
November 2018?
Alaa Abouzeid
Team Lead,
Operational
Partnership
Session Trainer,
SIMEX Role Player
4 Non It went well. Presentations should be
shorter with more time
for discussions. Separate
HCCs from IMOs. Make
sure that there is
minimum
level/experience, so the
participants can get the
benefit of the training.
As mentioned before No
Alex Rosewell
Health Specialist
GOARN
Session Training,
SIMEX Support
3 Further detailing
the session plan
with key
competencies
tested etc. could
be a
consideration, as
well as hot debrief
training/refresher
for facilitators,
highlighting the
key elements to
bring out. Consider
structured debrief
with all groups
rather than
individually per
team so all can
learn from other
sessions.
Looked good. Work
with GOARN for
GOARN part. Happy
to be involved, as is
Polly Wallace.
No comment No comment No
66
Corentin Piroux
Intern in LCD Dept
SIMEX Support 4 I think the overall
enthusiasm of
participants and
facilitators
throughout the
sessions shows that
they went pretty
well.
I think the
participants
understood the
need of going
through this type of
exercise and got the
full experience the
SIMEX actually
implies. From what I
saw, they really took
this opportunity to
improve their know-
how. With more or
less interest and
involvement among
the participants, I
think they all tried to
put into practice the
theories they had
learnt earlier and
that's mainly why the
SIMEX went well too.
Definitely, the SIMEX
which shows exactly
how people work and
interact with each other
in a fast-paced
environment
I think a follow-up on
the good practices
learnt and
experienced during
the SIMEX would help
them have a clearer
understanding of all
the aspects they cover
during the plenary
sessions after having
lived them during the
SIMEX
No
Emma Fitzpatrick
Technical Officer
GHCU
Training Manager,
SIMEX Role Player.
I ran one clinic on
AAP and adjusted
and supported
desktop exercises
throughout the
training
4 I think all the
sessions went well.
I would possibly
suggest more
focused pre-
session/ training
tasks to rather
than just the pre-
reading. Especially
with such a wide
range of
knowledge and
experience of the
group
More team
members, so the
people in charge of
the technical
feedback are not
also called upon to
role play
I think it is helpful to
have a core group of
trainers throughout the
entire period. I also
think we should aim to
keep the entire training
to under 5 days.
Keep the training to
five days. Welcome
reception on the day
of arrival (possibly
include an update
from the Global Level
then). Then move into
1 day of targeted
sessions. 2-3 days of
scenario-based
training but during
normal working hours.
After each main task,
there is time to stop,
feedback and discuss
in detail, and then the
solutions is provided, to
be used for the next
phase in the scenario.
Offer clinic in the
evenings if the
scenario is stopped by
It was helpful to have
the trainers identified
in advance, so they
could update their
presentations in
advance.
67
18.00. Then the final
day for discussions of
any remaining
technical areas of
concern and
evaluation
Gabriel Novelo Sierra,
HCC Ukraine
Session Trainer,
SIMEX Technical
Advisor, - principle
feedback, SIMEX
Role Player
3 Overall, I think the
training and SIMEX
has become too
long in duration
and should stay
relying more on e-
learning for at
least 30% of the
theoretical section
I thought the teams
were a bit too large
this time around and
we should aim to
work with smaller
groups next time,
also we should try to
make sure the
number of IMOs is
more balanced
As mentioned before, I
think that some of the
pre-reading should be
reinforced by e-learning
components and the
face to face training
should focus on
practical examples and
SIMEX
The sessions on AAP
and advocacy need
to be completely
reworked as I think
they were sub-par and
should be improved as
participants were
expecting more on
these topics
Gillian O’Connell
Consultant GHCU
Event Co-
Facilitator, Session
Trainer, SIMEX Role
Player
3 Session 1.4.
Collaborative
Leadership.
Participants
enjoyed the
practical exercises
– need to tighten
the link between
situational
leadership and the
SIMEX
Smaller team sizes
and update the
injects. Review and
strengthen the
personal
competency
assessment tool
SIMEX and focus on
individual learning
objectives.
Blend with eLearning
and mentoring. Enable
effective peer review
of session plans. Have
more information
about the Participants
i.e. review the target
group
This is a very good
training and its
remarkable how the
GHCU puts it all
together
Hyo Jeong Kim
Attacks on Health
Care Focal Point at
HQ
Session Trainer,
SIMEX Role Player
3 I believe the
session went well
as planned, but a
bit more time may
have helped to
address some of
the points raised in
the Q&A as
reflected in the
participant
feedback on the
session. Also, the
different level of
understanding
among the
participants on the
Attacks on Health
The SIMEX was
interesting and well
organized. The
assessment tool was
a new one for me, so
it took me a bit of
time to understand
and comment on it.
It would be useful to
link the tool with the
sessions as well as
the SIMEX as it is
difficult to judge
people properly
based on limited
interaction.
A more adapted
version of the
assessment tool
Some more time for
the attacks on health
care session would be
great, to better
address the points
raised by the
participants.
68
Care Initiative was
a bit challenging
to manage. But I
believe the
objective of
having people
know of this
approach, and
the need to think
about it in their
response was well
achieved.
Karim Yassmineh
External Relations
Officer
Session Trainer,
I delivered 3
sessions on
resource
mobilisation
covering the
following areas: 1-
Pooled funds
mechanisms, 2-
RM Overview 3-
Engagement with
donors. followed
by 2 exercises
4 I think the
interaction was
great, all
participants
engaged in the
discussion. Given
the different
background of the
participants and
to meet the
expectation of
maximum number;
I would suggest
sharing a quick
survey ahead of
the training on the
topics that we are
planning to cover,
that would allow
us to test the
knowledge of the
participants and
check how deep
they would like us
to go on the
proposed topics.
Unfortunately, I
could not
participate at the
SIMEX
As the majority of
participants enjoyed
the RM sessions. I would
recommend keeping it
the same. bearing in
mind that the PPTs were
prepared collectively
by group of experts in
RM. I would
recommend not to
organize the 3 sessions
successively.
Please check the
above answer.
No
Linda Doull Session Trainer,
SIMEX Role Player
3 The first session on
global level
updates always
receives mixed
feedback - as
some participants
Overall the SIMEX
went well, given the
relatively small
support team, but
areas for
improvement
I wasn't present
throughout the entire
course so will provide
feedback based on
review of final written
evaluation feedback.
I wasn't present
throughout the entire
course so will provide
feedback based on
review of final written
evaluation feedback.
Earlier discussion on
the competency
assessment would
have been helpful.
SIMEX material
update needs to be
69
more aware of
issues than others,
but overall
feedback was
positive. Might be
more interesting to
incorporate a
'quick-quiz'
approach for
some sections to
improve
participant
engagement.
include more
attention to detail on
the information
provided (ensure it is
fully up-to-date),
ensure role players
are chosen to 'play
to their
strengths/subject
matter expertise &
ensure role players
focus on the reality
/learning objectives.
Participants I spoke
with suggested the
need to alter session
on X-cutting issues/HIV
& overview of cluster
coordination. The
approach to assessing
participant
competencies needs
to be re-thought.
more complete in
advance of the
training.
Oliver Stucke
Technical Officer
Competency-
based assessment
& participant
feedback
3 Overall the
competency
assessment
worked, and
individual
feedback seems
to have been
appreciated.
- Difficulties arose
from the fact that
participants
compared
individual scores
- Improvements
are required in the
preparation of
assessors to ensure
more standardised
scoring and limit
extreme scoring
(scores 0 and 3) to
behaviours that
merit such a score.
Last minute
changes and
modifications to the
scenario and roles
created
unnecessary stress
and workload. The
more an agreed
scenario is
respected, the easier
it becomes to run
the SIMEX
I think participants enjoy
learning through
practical exercises.
Accordingly, I would
keep the simulation
part. Classroom
teaching may need to
be front loaded (online
learning) in parts and
real focus given on
exercising practical skills
that can be applied in
the simulation later.
Additional thought
should be put into
aligning classroom
content with the SIMEX
tasks. It is e.g. to
observes desired
behaviour, if such
behaviour has not
been defined
previously. E.g. a lot of
tasks revolved around
meeting management
and coordination of
partners, yet there was
no session on good
meeting management
practices or the
definition of objectives
for partner
coordination. Even
though this is the "daily
work" of HCCs, there
seems to be no
common standard in
place.
- I personally missed
stronger references to
the ERF, which actually
provides some good
guidance and can
help structure
Overall, meeting
preparation was very
good, and the venue
was nice.
70
interventions,
especially at the
beginning of an
emergency.
- The design should
also focus more on the
"why". Many tasks are
requested in a
mechanical way, but
reasons behind the
tasks are not always
clear (as they may
seem obvious to
faculty members, but
not to participants).
- Finally, it may be
worthwhile to apply
clear criteria for the
selection of
participants. Too wide
a range of experience
and expertise is
sometimes difficult to
manage. Also a clear,
demonstrated
motivation for learning
and development is a
pre-requisite.
Monta Reinfeld
Digital
Communications
Consultant
SIMEX Support 4 I enjoyed my roles
as an information
manager and role
player for media.
Overall, I think
both tasks went
well. Maybe for
the next one, we
could put in place
a plan of action
on how to respond
to very technical
questions on the
email, taking into
consideration that
the person
I think that the
simulation exercise
was very successful
and so much
valuable feedback
was provided to
participants. I think it
was very nice in 2017
that we went outside
as well to do some
roles, we should do
that again next time.
We should definitely
keep giving a lot of
feedback to
participants and also
allow participants give
feedback to us.
Continue having a two-
way communication
and experience sharing
with participants
throughout the training,
as opposed to just
lecturing.
We could add a few
more tasks participants
need to do
mandatory, otherwise
some teams were
doing much more than
others. We could
expand the
communication role
play to include more
participants.
The training was
great and all staff
putting it together
and carrying it out
were amazing! Really
nice, fun and
professional group!
I'm so happy and
thankful I could be a
part of this and would
love to contribute in
the next training as
well.
71
responding to the
emails is not a
technical expert
and that people
who are technical
experts are doing
their own roles and
they don't have
time to respond.
Regarding media
role play, I agree
with what I heard
from some
participants that
this session should
be expanded, so
more people are
given the chance
to participate.
Otherwise only
one person from
each team was
involved.
Patricia Kormoss
Operational
Partnership Officer
EURO
Session Trainer,
SIMEX Technical
Advisor – Principle
Feedback, SIMEX
Role Player
3 I believe the
session went well
as planned, but a
bit more time may
have helped to
address some of
the points raised in
the Q&A as
reflected in the
participant
feedback on the
session. Also the
different level of
understanding
among the
Participants on the
Attacks on Health
Care Initiative was
a bit challenging
to manage. But I
believe the
The SIMEX was
interesting and well
organized. The
assessment tool was
a new one for me so
it took me a bit of
time to understand
and comment on it.
It would be useful to
link the tool with the
sessions as well as
the SIMEX as it is
difficult to judge
people properly
based on limited
interaction.
A more adapted
version of the
assessment tool
Some more time for
the attacks on health
care session would be
great, to better
address the points
raised by the
participants.
I believe the session
went well as planned,
but a bit more time
may have helped to
address some of the
points raised in the
Q&A as reflected in
the participant
feedback on the
session. Also the
different level of
understanding
among the
participants on the
Attacks on Health
Care Initiative was a
bit challenging to
manage. But I
believe the objective
of having people
know of this
72
objective of
having people
know of this
approach, and
the need to think
about it in their
response was well
achieved.
approach, and the
need to think about it
in their response was
well achieved.
Silvia Sanchez
Intern GHCU
Secretariat, SIMEX
Support
4 The Simex must have
an updated
scenario and the
materials must be
revised because
some of the
information was not
matching. It was
evident for the
participants. The
simulations is the
strongest art of the
training and learners
were very motivated
during the process.
The evaluation for
participants through
SIMEX is not very
strong, even if the
tools, such as the
matrix, is very well
developed. I think a
peer evaluation
could be included at
the end of the SIMEX.
The organization, the
SIMEX, the trainers and
most important, the
daily feedback and all
the modifications made
during the training to
adapt the content and
methodology. Was
obvious for the
participants that we
were paying attention
to their opinions and
thoughts.
The participants must
have the same level to
achieve the learning
objectives. I think it is
during the selection
process and
according to the
experience of them. I
felt some frustration
from those who were
the most experienced
while most of the
group was learning
because everything
was new. To have
different levels could
be a starting point to
develop a second part
of the training, for
those who already
have the
competencies and
skills of this training.
I loved working on it.
Was very fun, I
learned a lot and it
reinforced my
professional
motivation to pursue
a career in the
humanitarian sector.