11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Tools and Checklists Used for the Evaluation of Hospital Disaster Preparedness: A Systematic Review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Hospitals need to be fully operative during disasters. It is therefore essential to be able to evaluate hospital preparedness. However, there is no consensus of a standardized, comprehensive and reliable tool with which to measure hospital preparedness. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review of evaluation tools for hospital disaster preparedness. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The key words “crisis,” “disaster,” “disaster medicine,” “emergency,” “mass casualty,” “hospital preparedness,” “hospital readiness,” “hospital assessment,” “hospital evaluation,” “hospital appraisal,” “planning,” “checklist,” and “medical facility” were used in combination with the Boolean operators “OR” and “AND.” PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD), ISI Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY), and Scopus (Elsevier, New York, NY) were searched. A total of 51,809 publications were screened. The following themes were required for relevance: logistics, planning, human resources, triage, communication, command and control, structural and nonstructural preparedness, training, evacuation, recovery after disaster, coordination, transportation, surge capacity, and safety. The results from 15 publications are presented. Fifteen articles fulfilled the criteria of relevance and considered at least 1 of the 14 predetermined themes. None of the evaluated checklists and tools included all dimensions required for an appropriate hospital preparedness evaluation. The results of the current systematic review could be used as a basis for designing an evaluation tool for hospital disaster preparedness. ( Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;page 1 of 8)

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          An analysis of hospital preparedness capacity for public health emergency in four regions of China: Beijing, Shandong, Guangxi, and Hainan

          Background Hospital preparedness is critical for the early detection and management of public health emergency (PHE). Understanding the current status of PHE preparedness is the first step in planning to enhance hospitals' capacities for emergency response. The objective of this study is to understand the current status of hospital PHE preparedness in China. Methods Four hundred hospitals in four city and provinces of China were surveyed using a standardized questionnaire. Data related to hospital demographic data; PHE preparation; response to PHE in community; stockpiles of drugs and materials; detection and identification of PHE; procedures for medical treatment; laboratory diagnosis and management; staff training; and risk communication were collected and analyzed. Results Valid responses were received from 318 (79.5%) of the 400 hospitals surveyed. Of the valid responses, 264 (85.2%) hospitals had emergency plans; 93.3% had command centres and personnel for PHE; 22.9% included community organisations during the training for PHE; 97.4% could transport needed medical staff to a PHE; 53.1% had evaluated stockpiles of drugs; 61.5% had evaluated their supply systems; 55.5% had developed surveillance systems; and 74.6% could monitor the abnormity(See in appendix). Physicians in 80.2% of the analyzed hospitals reported up-to-date knowledge of their institution's PHE protocol. Of the 318 respondents, 97.4% followed strict laboratory regulations, however, only about 33.5% had protocols for suspected samples. Furthermore, only 59.0% could isolate and identify salmonella and staphylococcus and less than 5% could isolate and identify human H5N1 avian flu and SARS. Staff training or drill programs were reported in 94.5% of the institutions; 50.3% periodically assessed the efficacy of staff training; 45% had experts to provide psychological counselling; 12.1% had provided training for their medical staff to assess PHE-related stress. All of the above capacities related to the demographic characteristics of hospitals and will be discussed in-depth in this paper. Conclusion Our survey suggested that, at the time of the survey, hospital preparedness for PHE in China was at an early stage of development. Comprehensive measures should be taken to enhance hospital capacity in the prevention and management of PHE.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prevalence of unwanted pregnancy in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

            Different studies show that a considerable number of pregnancies are unwanted and can have side effects on mothers'' children's and finally society's health. Accordingly, this meta-analysis study has been carried out to estimate a relatively accurate level of unwanted pregnancies in Iran.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effectiveness of disaster training for health care workers: a systematic review.

              Evidence-based medical literature is lacking about the best methods to train health care providers in disaster response. We systematically review the recent literature to report whether training interventions in disaster preparedness improve knowledge and skills in disaster response. We searched MEDLINE through PubMed, ISI Web of Science, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Public Affairs Information Service, and Education Full Text. Selected journals, articles, and other comprehensive reports were also reviewed for relevant citations. Subjects of eligible articles were hospital-based and out-of-hospital health care providers. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were published in English between January 2000 and December 2005, described a training exercise undertaken to further knowledge or skills in disaster response, measured a quantitative and objective outcome, and used a control group. Included studies were independently reviewed by 2 researchers, and study quality was assessed with criteria adapted from the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. We identified 258 studies. Nine studies are included in this review. Computer- and lecture-based training interventions may be effective in increasing disaster-related knowledge for out-of-hospital providers, though questions about study design and quality may cast doubt on the results. Evidence about effectiveness of training for inhospital providers is inconclusive. Comparison across studies is difficult because of diversity in study subjects, designs, and interventions. Results are likely biased by contamination from outside events. The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether training interventions for health care providers are effective in improving knowledge and skills in disaster response.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
                Disaster med. public health prep.
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                1935-7893
                1938-744X
                October 2016
                May 27 2016
                October 2016
                : 10
                : 5
                : 781-788
                Article
                10.1017/dmp.2016.30
                27231031
                8f5b4fc7-f5f5-4b5e-8e88-19de47138152
                © 2016

                https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article