Does Hospital Disaster Preparedness Predict Response Performance During a Full-scale Exercise? A Pilot Study

Abstract

This pilot study showed that it is possible to use standardized evaluations tools, to simultaneously assess the relationship between preparedness elements and response performance measures. An experimental study including a group of hospitals, also using more comprehensive evaluation tools, should be done to evaluate the correlation between the level of preparedness and the response performance of a hospital, and the impact of hospital disaster planning, on the outcome of disasters victims.

Impact of the 2011 Revolution on Hospital Disaster Preparedness in Yemen

“…A prompt and effective hospital response during disasters can only arise from a viable, well thought out disaster strategy, one that brings together all components of disaster planning (ie, command and control, operational plan, surge capacity, critical services, and essential resources). [21][22][23] Major civil unrest also requires that hospitals be able to carry out triage, trauma care, and decontamination of riot control agents. 24 Careful attention should also be paid to command, coordination, communication, safety and security, and availability of required equipment and medications.…”

Meta-evaluation of published studies on evaluation of health disaster preparedness exercises through a systematic review

“…The studies were mainly conducted in United States,[ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] the Netherlands,[ 25 ] Australia,[ 26 ] and Italy. [ 17 ] According to conducted studies, eight exercises were often operation-based and full-scale[ 17 18 23 26 ] and drill[ 19 22 24 25 ] and two studies on their exercises were discussion-based and tabletop. [ 19 21 ] Furthermore, the majority of disaster exercises varied from 2 h to 3 days at hospitals and during the exercises.…”

“…[ 11 ] According to results of study, there are different tools and techniques to collect data for evaluating performance of health and medical systems through disaster exercise and they include self-report (completion of questionnaires by participants), questionnaire, interview, observation, shooting video, photographing, electronic equipment, as well as use of qualitative research techniques such as Delphi to prepare tool items which can be utilized alone or together depending on objective of exercise. Research results indicate that different exercises mostly aimed to enhance self-confidence in employees,[ 18 23 24 ] improve perception of preparedness, increase awareness of roles and responsibilities of our organizations or other organizations which participated in response operations,[ 26 ] implement the incident command system,[ 24 ] identify gaps and limitations of plans, programs and protocols of health disasters,[ 17 ] share information between participating organizations in disaster response program, and provide an opportunity for exercising emergency programs of organizations,[ 17 21 24 ] review and improve interorganizational communications, provide an opportunity for interorganizational collaboration, and development of knowledge, attitude, perception, skill, and behavior in participants. [ 18 25 ]…”

“…[ 14 21 ] According to research results, the most important features of a disaster exercise evaluation tool should include experience in design, implementation, and evaluation of disaster exercises; disaster-related academic knowledge and attitude; experience in disaster response and preparedness programs as well as participation in disaster training courses. [ 17 19 21 23 24 ] Majority of studies utilized standard program of Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program Guidelines to design tools for the disaster exercise evaluation. [ 20 22 23 ] Some of them also reviewed past studies and used panel of experts as the basis for the preparation of evaluation tools.…”

“…[ 16 ] The score of quantitative studies ranged from 2 to 7 and majority of those did not provide any ethical statement, study design, sampling, and reflexivity related to research process. In the cross-sectional studies, only three out of ten articles[ 17 18 19 ] were used appropriate methods, also majority of them did not consider important confounding factors accounted.…”