Regional Antivenom Stocking Board Adviser

The mandate

The consortium is preparing multi-country awards using historic vial consumption and aggregate stock, yet snakebite risk differs by species, geography, season, access time and the receiving hospital’s ability to recognise and manage envenoming. Products vary in venom coverage, dose practice, shelf life, presentation and country authorisation. A regional depot can therefore report months of cover while the exposed district lacks the relevant product or treatment capability. Governors need an independent test before committing procurement and buffer capital.

Five council sessions and five manufacturer, store, poison-centre or treatment-network observations carry the antivenom challenge from procurement evidence into treatment reality. Within a monthly allowance of three days, the adviser reviews supply, works one species-region case and prepares and follows through with the chair. Management supplies de-identified incidence, treatment and stock records through the secretariat. For a proposed award or emergency-buffer change, missing species, shelf-life and treatment-capability assumptions are due within two business days and the complete board challenge within five; the adviser does not become an incident clinician or allocation dispatcher.

Tender design, award challenge and one seasonal readiness review set a nine-month finish line. The council closes the work by accepting the species-product-region map, usable-expiry bridge, supplier cases, transfer guardrails and annual questions. Delayed tender action, unresolved registration and a continuing snakebite season remain with public-health owners and cannot make payment award-dependent or prolong the adviser. Renewal for a different standing question would require its own council resolution.

The adviser has no line authority and carries no executive or clinical responsibility for diagnosis, treatment, product registration, tender issue, supplier award, stock purchase, release, national allocation or emergency transfer. Health ministries, regulators, clinicians, Quality and procurement bodies retain those powers. The adviser may challenge whether product, place, time and treatment capability align, but cannot prescribe, approve a vial or move public stock.

Manufacturer, distributor, donor, poison-centre, hospital, logistics, epidemiology-model and competing-procurement relationships must be declared. A conflict involving a product or country requires recusal from that entire case. Patient records remain de-identified. Compensation cannot depend on tender value, supplier selection, doses purchased or follow-on distribution, and the adviser may not promote a manufacturer under the guise of species-coverage education.

Why the board wants this voice

Procurement sees annual vials, epidemiology sees reported cases and hospitals see emergencies, while species fit and time-to-treatment sit between their datasets. The council needs a leader who has challenged apparent national cover that was unusable where risk arose. Independent scrutiny can test buffer architecture without substituting for clinical protocols or sovereign purchasing decisions.

What you will own

• Test demand by species risk, geography, season, under-reporting, access time, treatment site and credible dose range.
• Map each product’s venom coverage, presentation, shelf life, authorisation, supplier capacity and receiving-network requirements.
• Challenge national and regional buffers for usable expiry, transfer time, replenishment lead and mismatched-product concentration.
• Probe award design for sole-source exposure, batch cadence, demand pooling, surge options and manufacturer quality continuity.
• Examine whether poison centres, transport and treatment sites can turn stocked vials into timely, supported clinical access.
• Shape exercises for regional outbreak, batch rejection, border delay, product recall and simultaneous seasonal demand.
• Give the council an exposure map, award questions, buffer cases, transfer guardrails, conflicts and annual challenge agenda.

Candidate qualifications

• Held senior antivenom, toxin-biologics, emergency-medicine supply or public-health procurement authority across multiple regions.
• Has aligned product-specific coverage and regional stock after discovering aggregate vial counts concealed a clinical mismatch.
• Understands species epidemiology, polyvalent and monovalent products, shelf life, batch supply, regulation and treatment-site readiness.
• Can challenge demand and buffers without assuming ministry, regulator, clinician, Quality, tender or emergency-allocation authority.
• Has advised public boards where sparse surveillance and under-reporting required transparent ranges rather than false precision.
• Brings independence from manufacturers and distributors and can protect sensitive patient, capacity and procurement evidence.

Non-negotiables

• Can support five Mexico City council sessions and five regional observations during the nine-month term.
• Brings direct antivenom, toxin-biologics or closely comparable emergency-biologic supply depth; generic pharmaceuticals is insufficient.
• Will disclose manufacturer, distributor, donor, hospital, poison-centre, logistics and country-procurement interests before access.
• Accepts no diagnosis, treatment, registration, tender, award, purchase, release, allocation or board-voting authority.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe aggregate antivenom stock you challenged because species or treatment-site fit was wrong.
2. 49 words maximum. Which input most changes your usable regional buffer: season, expiry, access time or dose uncertainty?
3. 49 words maximum. What manufacturer, distributor, ministry or poison-centre relationship could require your recusal?

---