Supplementary materials

This document provides the supplementary materials referred to in the ‘Guide for designing and conducting in-action and after-action reviews’, published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control in March 2026.

These editable templates should be adapted to the needs of individual action reviews. The instructions in italics at the beginning of each template are intended to be removed. Please consult the corresponding guide for contextual details and instructions, as well as any references relating to individual items.

Part I: Overview of the action review process

Response Area Matrix (Action 2)

Stakeholder Mapping Matrix (Action 4)

Workshop Agenda Template (Action 5)

Part II: Methodology for conducting action review workshops

Impact x Feasibility Matrix (Step 5)

Corrective Actions Table (Step 6)

Evaluation Form (Closing session)

Response Area Matrix

This matrix can be used to define the scope of the action review. Begin by identifying the operational topics (columns) that are most relevant to the public health emergency under review. This can help you to identify the primary response areas for the action review. Next, determine the most relevant cross-cutting topics (rows) for this operational topic and mark an ‘X’ at the place where they intersect. This can help to narrow down the most critical response areas and related cross-cutting topics to review.

Operational topics
Laboratory and diagnostics	Risk communication, community engagement, and infodemic management	Public health intelligence and risk assessment	Surveillance (e.g. epidemiological, microbiological, clinical)	Outbreak investigation, contact tracing	Clinical management and hospital infection prevention and control	Community infection prevention and control and non-pharmaceutical measures	Public health and biomedical research	Vaccination deployment
Cross-cutting topics	Planning, legislation, coordination, decision-making
Human resources
Logistics and incident management
Special settings (e.g. points of entry, schools, prisons)

Stakeholder Mapping Matrix

This matrix can be used to map the stakeholders who should participate in the review. For each selected response area (row), identify the relevant organisations, institutions or authorities from each sector (columns). List the specific stakeholders in the appropriate field.

Response areas	Sectors
Political, central government, relevant authority or civil protection	Public health decision-making	Epidemiology and surveillance	Microbiology	Clinical management	Research	Other
1	Laboratory systems, diagnostics
2	Risk communication, community engagement, and infodemic management
3	Special settings (e.g. points of entry, schools, prisons, migrant reception centres)
4	Epidemiology, surveillance
5	Outbreak investigation, contact tracing
6	Clinical management and hospital infection prevention and control
7	Community infection prevention and control and public health and social measures
8	Public health and biomedical research
9	Vaccination deployment
10	Planning, legislation, coordination, decision-making (including international collaborations)
11	Human resources
12	Logistics and incident management including operational use of information and communication technologies
13	Public health intelligence and risk assessment

Workshop Agenda Template

This sample agenda can be used as a template to create a printed or digital handout that can be shared with workshop participants. While the entire template can be adapted as needed, red text and square brackets have been used to indicate where information needs to be added or should be confirmed.

In/After-action review of [topic]

Scope

[Briefly describe the scope, e.g. the public health emergency response that will be reviewed, the time period under review , the response areas that will be covered.]

Objectives

[List the objectives of the action review]

Time segments under review

[List the particular time segments under review if there are more specific time windows within the period given in the scope]

Translation support

[Indicate who] will provide translation during the workshop.

Agenda

Day 1 – [Day Date]
8:30–9:00	Participant check-in and registration
9:00–10:00 Location: [Location] Format: [Plenary] Language: [English]	Session 1: Introduction and briefing Welcome (10 min) – [Name, role] Brief round of introductions: participants introduce themselves, which organisation/department they represent, and the main activities they performed during the response under review (20 min) Introduction of the action review’s scope and objectives, including the response area(s) being covered and the chosen timeframe. Brief discussion of the rationale and any other necessary contextual information. (15 min) – [Name, role] An overview of the workshop’s methodology and explanation of the expected outputs. Information about translation services and the role of note-takers. (15 min) – [Name, role]
10:00–10:30	Coffee break
10:30–12:30 Location: [Location] Format: [Plenary] Language: [English]	Session 2: Revisit – What happened? Step 1: Participants discuss relevant events that happened during the selected period of the response under review and collaboratively recreate the timeline.
12:30–13:30	Lunch break
13:30–15.30 Location: [Location] Format: [Plenary] Language: [English]	Session 3: Revisit – What actions were taken in response? Step 2: Participants identify and list the actions that were taken during the response under review.
15:30–16:00 Location: [Location] Format: [Plenary] Language: [English]	Summary of Day 1
Day 2 – [Day Date]
8:30–9:00	Participant check-in and registration
9:00–9:15 Location: [Location] Format: [Plenary] Language: [English]	Recap of Day 1 and overview of Day 2
9:15–11:30 Location: [Location] Format: [Plenary] Language: [English]	Session 4: Reflect – What went well and what was challenging? Step 3: Participants build on the timeline of events and actions created during the last session by adding the pain points and instances of good practice that they observed. Step 4: Participants vote to select the most critical pain points so that these can be assessed further in the next session.
11:30–12:00	Coffee break
12:00–13:00 Location: [Location] Format: [Plenary] Language: [English	Session 5: What can be done to improve? Step 5: The prioritised pain points from Step 4 are analysed using the Impact x Feasibility Matrix.
13:00–14:00	Lunch break
14:00–15:00 Location: [Location] Format: [Plenary] Language: [English]	Session 5: Continued Step 6: Practical actions and activities are proposed by filling in the Corrective Actions Table.
15:00–15:30 Location: [Location] Format: [Plenary] Language: [English	Closing session Summary of the workshop’s findings and description of the next steps in the action review process (10 min) – [Name, role] Evaluation of the workshop methodology (20 min) – [Name, role]
15:30–16:00	Closing coffee break

Impact x Feasibility Matrix

This matrix should be used during Step 5 of ECDC’s methodology for conducting action review workshops. It can be drawn onto a large piece of paper or whiteboard so participants can add sticky notes directly to the matrix. It can also be digitally reconstructed (e.g. using collaborative whiteboarding software) for virtual workshops.

Source: ECDC

Corrective Actions Table

This table should be filled in for each response area under review during Step 6 of ECDC’s methodology for conducting action review workshops to identify concrete, actionable steps to address the prioritised pain points. The time for implementation (examples given below in red) should be customised based on the individual action review and context (e.g. weeks to months for an in-action review vs months to years for an after-action review).

Time for implementation	Pain point (challenge)	Proposed action to address this issue	Objectives of the proposed action	How to assure implementation of this action, and/or increase feasibility?
For short-term implementation (within 2 years)
For mid-term implementation (in 2–5 years)
For long-term implementation (in 5–10 years)

Action Review Workshop Evaluation Form

This form can be used during the Closing session of the methodology for conducting action review workshops to gather participants’ views on the methodology’s effectiveness and to improve the process in the future. This form was adapted from ECDC and World Health Organization (WHO) documents. The form should be adapted to reflect the scope and purpose of the particular action review.

To what extent do you agree that the workshop reached the following objectives?
Please use a scale of 1 (fully disagree) to 5 (fully agree).

1 = Fully disagree to 5 = Fully agree	1	2	3	4	5
The action review allowed participants to identify challenges and gaps encountered during the course of the response.
The action review allowed participants to share experiences and instances of best practice encountered during the course of the response.
The action review contributed to strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration and coordination between relevant stakeholders involved in the response.
The action review contributed to strengthening collaboration and coordination between sectors (health, civil protection, environment, law enforcement, etc.) and governance levels (national/local) involved in the response.

How effective were these aspects of the workshop in achieving the objectives?
Please use a scale from 1 (not effective at all) to 5 (extremely effective).

1 = Not effective at all to 5 = Extremely effective	1	2	3	4	5
Presentations on the methodology and process of the action review
Session 1: Revisit
Session 2: Reflect
Session 3: Revise
Session 4: Closing session
The number of participants
The profile of participants, as related to the response function(s) examined
Another aspect of the action review methodology Please specify:

3. Would you use this methodology to review other public health emergency responses in your country?
Yes/no,

Please specify why:

Do you think the results of the workshop can contribute to the following objectives?
Please use a scale from 1 (can’t contribute) to 5 (can make a major contribution).

1 = Can’t contribute to 5 = Can make a major contribution	1	2	3	4	5
Strengthening preparedness and response capacity
Strengthening coordination and collaboration mechanisms
Strengthening preparedness and preparedness plans
Empowering individuals to better appreciate the challenges of emergency response
Other (please specify):

Other comments on/suggestions for the action review workshop methodology:

Other comments on the results of the workshop:

Thank you!

AR