Abstract
Epidemic preparedness requires clear procedures and guidelines when a rapid risk assessment of a communicable disease threat is requested. In an evaluation of past risk assessments, we found that modifications to existing guidelines, such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control's (ECDC) rapid risk assessment operational tool, can strengthen this process. Therefore, we present alternative guidelines, in which we propose a unifying risk assessment terminology, describe how the risk question should be phrased by the risk manager, and redefine the probability and impact dimension of risk, including a methodology to express uncertainty. In our approach, probability refers to the probability of the introduction of a disease into a specified population in a specified time period, and impact combines the magnitude of spread and the severity of the health outcomes. Based on the collected evidence, both the probability of introduction and the magnitude of spread are quantitatively expressed by expert judgements, providing unambiguous risk assessment. We advise not to summarize the risk by a single qualification as 'low' or 'high'. These alternative guidelines, which are illustrated by a hypothetical example on mpox, have been implemented at Statens Serum Institut in Denmark and can benefit other public health institutes.