Hospital resilience is a comprehensive concept derived from existing disaster resilience frameworks. It has four key domains: hospital safety; disaster preparedness and resources; continuity of essential medical services; recovery and adaptation. These domains were categorised according to four criteria, namely, robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness and rapidity. A conceptual understanding of hospital resilience is essential for an intellectual basis for an integrated approach to system development. This article (1) defines hospital resilience; (2) constructs conceptual framework (including key domains); (3) proposes comprehensive measures for possible inclusion in an evaluation instrument; and (4) develops a matrix of critical issues to enhance hospital resilience to cope with future disasters.

Objectives Hospital resilience is an emerging concept, which can be defined as ‘a hospital’s ability to resist, absorb, and respond to the shock of disasters while maintaining its critical health care functions, and then recover to its original state or adapt to a new one’. Our aim was to develop a comprehensive framework of key indicators of hospital resilience. Methods A panel of 33 Chinese experts was invited to participate in a three-round, modified Delphi study to develop a set of potential measures previously derived from a literature review. In the first round, these potential measures were modified to cover the comprehensive domains of hospital resilience. The importance of proposed measures was scored by experts on a five-point Likert scale. Subsequently, the experts reconsidered their voting in light of the previous aggregated results. Agreement on measures was defined as at least 70% of the responders agreeing or strongly agreeing to the inclusion of a measure. Results A large proportion of preliminary measures (89.5%) were identified as having good potential for assessing hospital resilience. These measures were categorized into eight domains, 17 subdomains, and 43 indicators. The highest rated indicators (mean score) were: equipment for on-site rescue (4.7), plan initiation (4.6), equipment for referral of patients with complex care needs (4.5), the plan execution (4.4), medication management strategies (4.4), emergency medical treatment conditions (4.4), disaster committee (4.4), stock types and quantities for essential medications (4.4), surge capacity of emergency beds (4.4), and mass-casualty triage protocols (4.4). Conclusions This framework identifies a comprehensive set of indicators of hospital resilience. It can be used for hospital assessment, as well as informing priority practices to address future disasters better.

Healthcare workers who have received disaster preparedness education are more likely to report a greater understanding of disaster preparedness. However, research indicates that current nursing curricula do not adequately prepare nurses to respond to disasters. This is the first study to assess Asia-Pacific nurses' perceptions about their level of disaster knowledge, skills, and preparedness. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 757 hospital and community nurses in seven Asia-Pacific countries. Data were collected using the modified Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool. Participants were found to have overall low-to-moderate levels of disaster knowledge, skills and preparedness, wherein important gaps were identified. A majority of the variance in disaster preparedness scores was located at the level of the individual respondent, not linked to countries or institutions. Multilevel random effects modelling identified disaster experience and education as significant factors of positive perceptions of disaster knowledge, skills, and management. The first step toward disaster preparedness is to ensure frontline health workers are able to respond effectively to disaster events. The outcomes of this study have important policy and education implications.

Hospital disaster resilience can be defined as “the ability of hospitals to resist, absorb, and respond to the shock of disasters while maintaining and surging essential health services, and then to recover to its original state or adapt to a new one.” This article aims to provide a framework which can be used to comprehensively measure hospital disaster resilience. An evaluation framework for assessing hospital resilience was initially proposed through a systematic literature review and Modified-Delphi consultation. Eight key domains were identified: hospital safety, command, communication and cooperation system, disaster plan, resource stockpile, staff capability, disaster training and drills, emergency services and surge capability, and recovery and adaptation. The data for this study were collected from 41 tertiary hospitals in Shandong Province in China, using a specially designed questionnaire. Factor analysis was conducted to determine the underpinning structure of the framework. It identified a four-factor structure of hospital resilience, namely, emergency medical response capability (F1), disaster management mechanisms (F2), hospital infrastructural safety (F3), and disaster resources (F4). These factors displayed good internal consistency. The overall level of hospital disaster resilience (F) was calculated using the scoring model: F = 0.615F1 + 0.202F2 + 0.103F3 + 0.080F4. This validated framework provides a new way to operationalise the concept of hospital resilience, and it is also a foundation for the further development of the measurement instrument in future studies.

BackgroundHospital disaster resilience can be defined as a hospital’s ability to resist, absorb, and respond to the shock of disasters while maintaining critical functions, and then to recover to its original state or adapt to a new one. This study aims to explore the status of resilience among tertiary hospitals in Shandong Province, China.MethodsA stratified random sample (n = 50) was derived from tertiary A, tertiary B, and tertiary C hospitals in Shandong Province, and was surveyed by questionnaire. Data on hospital characteristics and 8 key domains of hospital resilience were collected and analysed. Variables were binary, and analysed using descriptive statistics such as frequencies.ResultsA response rate of 82% (n = 41) was attained. Factor analysis identified four key factors from eight domains which appear to reflect the overall level of disaster resilience. These were hospital safety, disaster management mechanisms, disaster resources and disaster medical care capability. The survey demonstrated that in regard to hospital safety, 93% had syndromic surveillance systems for infectious diseases and 68% had evaluated their safety standards. In regard to disaster management mechanisms, all had general plans, while only 20% had specific plans for individual hazards. 49% had a public communication protocol and 43.9% attended the local coordination meetings. In regard to disaster resources, 75.6% and 87.5% stockpiled emergency drugs and materials respectively, while less than a third (30%) had a signed Memorandum of Understanding with other hospitals to share these resources. Finally in regard to medical care, 66% could dispatch an on-site medical rescue team, but only 5% had a ‘portable hospital’ function and 36.6% and 12% of the hospitals could surge their beds and staff capacity respectively. The average beds surge capacity within 1 day was 13%.ConclusionsThis study validated the broad utility of a framework for understanding and measuring the level of hospital resilience. The survey demonstrated considerable variability in disaster resilience arrangements of tertiary hospitals in Shandong province, and the difference between tertiary A hospitals and tertiary B hospitals was also identified in essential areas.