The Scottish Government

AVIAN INFLUENZA - SEMINAR FOR KEY OPERATIONAL PARTNERS
BIRNAM CONFERENCE AND ARTS CENTRE, 25 OCTOBER 2006

CONFERENCE REPORT

Purpose

Presentations

Q & A Session /Breakout Groups

Summary of Responses

Annex A: List of Delegates

Annex B: Agenda

PURPOSE

The purpose of this event was to ensure that Local Authorities and Strategic Coordinating Groups (SCGs) had a good understanding of their role in responding to avian influenza incursion in Scotland. Discussions between SEERAD and CoSLA set in motion the planning for this event, with the focus for the day being further sharpened in the light of lessons learned in dealing with the finding of the H5N1 swan in Cellardyke.

All 32 Local Authorities were invited to attend, along with representatives from the 5 Animal Health Offices. In addition, each of the 8 SCGs were invited to send representatives, covering interests such as Police, Fire and Rescue Services, Scottish Ambulance Service, SVS, Local Authorities, and Health Boards. The seminar was attended by around 120 delegates (see Annex A for a full list).

The avian influenza story is complicated. The aim of the day was to firstly brief operational partners on the current state of play and to make the distinction between animal disease and public health. The next stage was to look to ensure operational partners had a clear understanding of the nature of any response should it be required and offer a forward looking view of their role in any disease control response. It was also important to draw the distinction between the diseases control operation and the consequence management work which will inevitably flow from any such response. The seminar agenda can be found at Annex B.

This paper outlines the topics covered by the 9 speakers and goes on to summarise the contributions made by the delegates during the Q & A session and at the breakout groups. We are taking forward the findings presented in this report by feeding them into the ongoing contingency planning work for use in the event of an avian influenza outbreak in Scotland.

Top of page

PRESENTATIONS

In total 9 speakers made a series of short presentations. A short overview of each is set out below. The presentations were rounded off with a Q & A session, led by the conference chair, Ian Walford, Head of Fire and Civil Contingencies Division, Scottish Executive.

1) The event was opened with a presentation by Mike Lamont from the State Veterinary Service. Mike, who is Head of the Veterinary Unit based at Pentland House, spoke on 'General Scene Setting Regarding Avian Influenza and Response to Disease Outbreak'. The presentation focused on:

• The potential causes of disease spread.
• Risk to UK in the context of the autumn migration.
• Surveillance update - wild bird and domestic flock.
• Latest on vaccination - UK position including zoo birds, other member states.

2) Ian Bainbridge, Chief Ecological Advisor for the Scottish Executive presented on the 'Ornithological Overview - migration patterns and potential risks from wild bird movement'. Focus of presentation:

• Analysis of autumn migration into the UK and associated risks.
• Forward look to spring migration and what it means in terms of the risk to the UK.

3) Derick McIntosh, Head of Veterinary Services Scotland, SVS provided an 'Overview of the Operational Response'. Focus of presentation:

• The likely veterinary response on confirmation of avian influenza in the domestic flock / a wild bird.
• The field response in support of SE policy.
• Liaison with the DVM, ROD and the LDCC.
• Licensing of movements - controls and duration.

4) Paul Neison, a Scottish Executive, Assistant Chief Agricultural Officer spoke about the 'Role of the Regional Operations Director', a role which he assumes in the event of a Local Disease Control Centre being set up. Focus of presentation:

• Role of the ROD.
• Management of the local disease control operation.
• Co-ordination of local agencies.

5) Charlie Coull, Head of the Civil Contingencies Unit at the Scottish Executive presented on 'Consequence Management'. Focus of presentation:

• Co-ordination of operational partners through SCG at national level.

6) The final speaker of the morning was Fraser Thomson, Chief of Environmental Services at Fife Council who spoke on the 'Local Authority Perspective'. Focus of presentation:

• Role of the Local Authority.
• Disease enforcement issues.
• Local community liaison.

7) The opening speaker of the afternoon was Peter Sherry, Trading Standards and Consumer Services Manager from South Lanarkshire Council. Peter presented on the 'Generic Notifiable Animal Disease Contingency Plan template for Local Authorities'. Focus of presentation:

• First steps on confirmation of disease.
• Key areas of work until disease eradication is complete.

8) Chief Superintendant Jim Rodden, Fife Constabulary spoke on the 'Police Perspective'. Focus of presentation:

• Role of the Police.
• Convening of the SCG at local level.
• Controlling public access.

9) The final speaker was Dr Jim McMenamin from Health Protection Scotland. Dr McMenamin provided the 'Public Health Perspective'. Focus of presentation:

• Make the distinction between avian influenza as a disease of birds and a human 'flu pandemic.
• Reinforce that today's seminar focuses on the response to the disease of birds and not preparedness for a possible human flu pandemic.
• Look at the likely role of Local Health Boards and HPS during an outbreak and how this fits in with the HD response.
• The handling of communications with the public during a disease outbreak.

Top of page

Q & A SESSION AND BREAKOUT GROUPS

At the conclusion of the speakers a Q & A session and breakout groups were scheduled in order to give delegates the opportunity to pose questions to the speakers and also to discuss with colleagues the emerging issues from the presentations.

The Q & A session was held directly after the final presentation and took the form of a top table, comprising of the day's speakers, fielding questions from delegates. The points raised in this session are captured in the summary below under 'general points'.

Breakout groups met at the culmination of the afternoon session. Delegates were split into 8 groups of just under 20 delegates each, with each group allotted a chairman to facilitate discussion. As a guideline for the group discussions, three questions were set for groups to consider. Discussion questions were as follows -

1) Are there areas which emerged from the presentations that require further discussion?

2) Looking forward, what would you like to see happen in your area of expertise in order to better prepare for a robust and coordinated response to disease incursion?

3) Is there a good awareness of the distinction between disease control response and consequence management / business continuity?

Feedback from delegates has been recorded (see the summary of responses below) and the Scottish Executive and partner organisations are taking forward these points as part of their emergency preparedness.

Top of page

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

1) Are there areas which emerged from the presentations that require further discussion?

• Communication
• Media locations - Police and LAs would want to see a swift and robust SE Press Office presence to address media interest at the Infected Premises / LDCC.
• Interviews - Requests for interviews must be coordinated to deliver the correct message from the right people at the right time in order to inform and reassure the public. The proactive use of pre-prepared scripts, approved by the appropriate organisations would alleviate many concerns.
• Require clarity over lines of communications during the coordination of initial events.
• Statutory Powers
• Clarification is required about the powers LA officers have during animal disease control measures, particularly relating to movement restrictions, stopping and searching vehicles, and examining movement licences. Would look to the LDCC Management Control Team for guidance.
• The role of the SCG and its relationship with the LDCC.
• A perceived over-reliance on key players.
• Initial information contact - lack of clarity has been noted in the past.
• Need to find ways to ensure named people are informed of events timeously.
• What human resources to bring into the affected area e.g. concerns over staffing road blocks.
• Need for authorisation and secondments from other LAs.
• Important to get advice to local people quickly.
• Greater use of community councils required.
• A clear exit strategy for emerging from the disease control situation.

2) Looking forward, what would you like to see happen in your area of expertise in order to better prepare for a robust and coordinated response to disease incursion?

• An improvement in the availability of personnel to undertake LA enforcement officer responsibilities.
• Establish liaison, support and agreement between neighbouring LAs during animal disease control, with the provision of personnel.
• Create the links that draw upon knowledge of LA officers e.g. small holdings, possession of less than 50 birds.
• Need appropriate powers / legislation.
• Need appropriate resource - human and monetary.
• Health and Safety training.
• It is important to test the response

3) Is there a good awareness of the distinction between disease control response and consequence management / business continuity?

• Yes, in the upper reaches of organisations, but probably not at the point of the practical delivery services.
• There are resource issues, but also confusion over the role. Traditionally during emergencies there was the blue light phase, then when that was over the CE led the response to recovery and set the strategic direction.

Top of page

General points

Communication

• In terms of the LA response, the importance of signage was recognised. It was noted that a police manning of entry points to protection zones was not an automatic response but signage was important in this regard getting the message across to the public that restrictions were in place. Signs needed to be available very quickly upon confirmation of disease and it was considered something LAs could share amongst themselves rather than replicate 32 times across the country. Usage of generic rather than disease specific wording was considered useful.
• An exercise looking at cross border strategic communication group linkages was considered useful.
• Ensure NHS 24 are aware of ongoing situation.
• Concern that SEERAD and SVS did not co-operate with SCGs and operational partners. Although it was pointed out that closer links are established with SVS linked in to SCGs.

Resourcing

• Recognition of how limited police resources can be.
• The importance of a risk based approach to a response based on available resources and the impact on the wider area.
• The importance of coordination between LAs. This was seen as an area where further work is needed to be taken forward in order to enhance shared staffing. It was identified that mutual aid arrangements were not as well established as they are at central local government and the police. There are also other issues which need to be considered such as health and safety, insurance and employment rights. These issues can be picked up in the generic plan LACORS was developing but central support from the Executive would be useful. It was noted that this type of issue was being discussed in the SCGs and was generic rather than animal health specific.
• There was a discussion on the resources of operational partners and again the point was made that these resources were finite and that now Ops have business continuity responsibility they cannot drop these tasks completely. There was recognition that there would have to be enhanced staff and that staff likely to be selected to play a role in the response should receive training beforehand.
• CPHM Issues - again concern regarding resources and highlighting the fact that some health boards will only have one professional familiar with avian influenza issues and there may be resultant problems if there is an outbreak of disease when this individual was unavailable. There was support for a 'one-stop-shop' for information and integrated help-line and website response. The issue of mandatory health checks of personnel exposed to avian influenza was raised - but not discussed in detail.
• SCG requires early notification - e.g. Fire and Rescue Services may be able to assist with additional resources (e.g. cleansing and disinfection).

Authorisation Issues

• LA officers are only authorised for certain areas; authorisation can be done fairly quickly in an emergency situation; need to look at sharing resources cross boundary.

Contingency Plans

• LACORS plan - More background required on the origins of this Plan and who had input. Both Grampian and Fife have produced Avian Flu plans which seems to be duplication of effort. Concerns that other bodies are doing the same for other issues.
• Concern that the 'Scotland Plans' do not dovetail with SCG plans and were of a different structure to that of plans for all other emergencies. Point raised that SVS and SEERAD had lead roles in an animal disease outbreak and therefore the response structure was different to most other emergencies.

Contingency Planning - Exercises

• Greater awareness of the contingency planning exercise to be held across the country was considered useful as were wash up lessons. Whilst individual operational partners were engaged in exercises at local level, greater understanding of exercise programmes at national level was considered useful, particularly in the context of people taking up observer places.
• It is important that Animal Health Disease Contingency Planning exercises fit in to the wider programme of emergency exercises. Early involvement of operational partners with local SVS in the planning stages of an exercise would facilitate inputs to the exercise more specifically tailored to the learning objectives of the partners.
• Comments also from some present about sharing the costs of Contingency Planning exercises between local and central government.

Occupational Health / PPE

• The role of LAs was discussed with particular reference to the collection of bird carcasses. Query over what training and PPE would be provided for LA staff to pick up bird carcases. SVS clarified that there was no intention for LA staff to be involved in surveillance and that SNH will assume this role and have been trained and provided with PPE. LA staff may be involved in picking up birds that had not been selected for surveillance but this would take the form of routine cleansing department work. Concern was raised about a scenario whereby the die-offs of wild birds as a result of avian influenza were so huge that SEERAD could not cope with picking these birds up for surveillance reasons. Also concern raised about health risks to the public to come into contact with dead birds. CPHM stated that the perception of risk was greater than actual risk and other existing endemic non-notifiable diseases are of greater risk.
• Discussion on provision of occupational health. Not the role of SVS to advise on health protection and occupational health. Locally SVS advised operational partners to seek guidance from HPS or their own Health & Safety personnel. The SVS would however share information and give details on their own programmes.

Top of page

ANNEX A

DELEGATE LIST

Attendees: 121

Top of page

ANNEX B

AVIAN INFLUENZA SEMINAR FOR KEY OPERATIONAL PARTNERS
AGENDA

The aim of the day is to brief operational partners on the current state of play and offer them a forward looking view on their likely role in the disease control response in the light of lessons learned from Orkney and Cellardyke.

The morning and early afternoon comprises of a variety of speakers making 15 minute presentations with a couple of exceptions where a slightly longer slot has been deemed necessary. Time has been allotted in the afternoon for a group discussion to allow delegates to reflect on their learning from the day and talk through the issues.

10:00 am Coffee

10:35 am Introduction (chair - Ian Walford, SEJD)

10:50 am General Scene Setting Regarding Avian Influenza and Response to Disease Outbreak (Mike Lamont, SVS)

11:05 am Ornithological Overview - migration patterns and potential risks from wild bird movement (Ian Bainbridge, SEERAD)

11:20 am Overview of the Operational Response (Derick McIntosh, SVS)

11:40 am Regional Operations Director (Paul Neison, SEERAD)

11:55 am Consequence Management (Charlie Coull, SEJD)

12:10 pm Local Authority Perspective (Fraser Thomson, Fife Council)

12:30 - 13:15 pm LUNCH

13:15 pm Generic Notifiable Animal Disease Contingency Plan Template for Local Authorities (Peter Sherry, South Lanarkshire Council)

13:35 pm Police Perspective (Chief Superintendant Jim Rodden, Fife Constabulary)

13:55 pm Public Health Perspective - public health dimension and response to avian influenza outbreak, including communications (Dr Jim McMenamin, HPS)

14:15 pm Question and Answer Session (led by the chair)

14:30 pm Group Discussion - opportunity to reflect on what has been said and highlight any issues (introduced by the chair)

15:30 pm Closing comments from the chair followed by coffee

Top of page