A health clinic can report a dangerous disease quickly and still be unprepared for the next pandemic. In Lebanon, that contradiction is exactly what this study uncovered. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed critical gaps in health system preparedness worldwide, particularly within primary health care.

In Lebanon, differences between rural and urban clinics, and between clinics supported by international aid groups and those that were not, may affect their ability to respond to future pandemics. The research assessed whether Lebanon’s primary care clinics were prepared for future pandemics and looked for structural and non-structural gaps that could show how much improvement was needed.

It gathered systematic information from primary care clinics in both rural and urban areas using five areas of pandemic readiness. The survey was designed to describe what clinics were able to do, rather than turn preparedness into one overall score. That matters because the survey was designed to capture preparedness capacities across facilities, rather than reduce readiness to a single composite score.

The assessment looked at five parts of readiness: sharing disease information, protecting communities, providing safe care that can expand, getting needed supplies, and coordinating emergencies. Each part used several signs to assess preparedness at the clinic level.

Most clinics reported activities that connected them with local communities, showing widespread interaction with those communities. But risk communication was less consistent, and every clinic lacked a structured two-way way to hear and address community concerns. Emergency planning remained limited: 53.8 percent of clinics reported having an emergency plan, while 52.1 percent said those plans were reviewed regularly.

About half reported an emergency team and a named person to lead during an emergency, while only some reported plans to bring in additional staff when demand increased. The strongest contrast was in disease reporting: 99.4 percent of clinics reported timely reporting through the national disease-monitoring system, but no clinic reported a formal way to respond systematically to community concerns.

Needed responses were generally available, although availability differed across vaccines, medicines, laboratory networks, and essential supplies. Overall, the study found uneven preparedness: clinics showed important strengths in national information systems and continued disease monitoring, but persistent gaps remained across major areas of readiness.

The largest gaps involved emergency coordination, risk communication, community engagement, and safe care that could expand. Clinics supported by international aid groups had stronger workforce capacity and more essential services, but those advantages did not produce stronger planning, coordination, or lasting financing.

The findings suggest that clinics were adapting services as problems arose rather than operating within a firmly established preparedness system. The lack of strong rural–urban differences suggests that preparedness gaps may reflect limits across the whole system rather than geography alone.

For patients and families, the practical message is that clinics showed strengths in disease surveillance and in maintaining essential services during pandemics. But dependable protection also requires preparedness planning, coordination, risk communication, and community engagement, so communities have a way to be heard.

Lebanon’s clinics were strong at spotting disease and finding supplies, but much weaker at planning, coordination, and listening to communities. Pandemic readiness needs more than keeping services running.