The benefits of emergency care systems in low- and middle-income countries are well-described. Passed in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolution 76.2 emphasizes the importance of communication, transportation and referral mechanisms, and the linkages between communities, primary care, and hospital care. Literature describing prehospital care and ambulance system development is scarce, with little data on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of different options. Prehospital care systems in Pacific Island countries are under-developed. In Fiji, out-of-hospital care is fragmented with an uncoordinated patchwork of ambulance providers. There is no scope of practice or training requirement for providers and no patient care records. There are no data relating to demand, access, and utilization of ambulance services.

In response to a surge of COVID-19 cases in 2021, the Fiji government created a Prehospital Emergency Care Coordination Center (PHECCC) in the capital Suva, which was operational from July-October 2021. Access was via a toll-free number, whereby the public could receive a medical consultation followed by phone advice or dispatch of an ambulance for a home assessment, followed by transportation to hospital, if required. The PHECCC also provided coordination of inter-facility transport and retrieval of the critically ill.

The system that was created met many of the prehospital care standards set by emergency care leaders in the region and created the first dataset relating to ambulance demand and utilization. This is the first article to document prehospital system development in the Pacific region.

As Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) meet in an International Negotiating Body (INB) to negotiate a legally binding agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response for submission to the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024, this column reflects on creative but pragmatic and complementary means that could be employed in the short timeframe allotted for this important global health law negotiation.

An expansive, worldwide smallpox eradication programme (SEP) was announced by the World Health Assembly in 1958, leading this decision-making body to instruct the World Health Organization Headquarters in Geneva to work with WHO regional offices to engage and draw in national governments to ensure success. Tabled by the Soviet Union’s representative and passed by a majority vote by member states, the announcement was subject to intense diplomatic negotiations. This led to the formation, expansion and reshaping of an ambitious and complex campaign that cut across continents and countries. This article examines these inter-twining international, regional and national processes, and challenges long-standing historiographical assumptions about the fight against smallpox only gathering strength from the mid-1960s onwards, after the start of a US-supported programme in western Africa. The evidence presented here suggests a far more complex picture. It shows that although the SEP’s structures grew slowly between 1958 and 1967, a worldwide eradication programme resulted from international negotiations made possible through gains during this period. Significant progress in limiting the incidence of smallpox sustained international collaboration, and justified the prolongation and expansion of activities. Indeed, all of this bore diplomatic and legal processes within the World Health Assembly and WHO that acted as the foundation of the so-called intensified phase of the SEP and the multi-faceted activities that led to the certification of smallpox eradication in 1980.

In accordance with the World Health Assembly Resolution 58.1, the World Health Organization (WHO) convened an Expert Consultation in Geneva, Switzerland from 15–17 February 2006 to discuss and provide recommendations for enhancing emergency preparedness and capacity building at the community, country, regional, and global levels. The consultation included experts and representatives of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations. Recommendations included a set of operational objectives and strategies for achieving them. It was recognized that emergency preparedness is part of development and that crises occur at the community level. The recommendations, therefore, were focused at the community and country levels and outlined processes by which WHO could assist countries in augmenting their abilities to cope with health emergencies. This document provides a detailed discussion of the issues addressed, the conclusions reached, and recommendations based on the conclusions.