Hospital safety index: assessing the readiness and resiliency of hospitals in Indonesia

Sunindijo, Riza Yosia; Lestari, Fatma; Wijaya, Oktomi

doi:10.1108/f-12-2018-0149

Cited by 33 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The remaining 38 articles were read in full text, and 16 further articles were discarded as not meeting the required inclusion criteria, leaving 22 articles that satisfied all criteria 22–43 (Figure 1). The excluded articles included two systematic literature reviews 45,46 and four articles where a full text was not available.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safer Hospital Infrastructure Assessments for Socio-Natural Disaster – A Scoping Review

Luke¹,

Franklin²,

Aitken³

et al. 2021

Prehosp. Disaster med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this review was to explore hospital socio-natural disaster resilience by identifying: studies assessing structural and non-structural aspects of building resilience; components required to maintain a safe and functional health facility; and if the checklists used were comprehensive and easily performed. Methods: A review systemic approach using PRISMA was taken to search the literature. The search focused on articles that discuss hospital disaster resilience. This includes assessments and checklists for facility structural and non-structural components. Results: This review identified 22 articles describing hospital assessments using checklists containing structural and non-structural elements of resilience. These studies identified assessments undertaken in ten countries, with eight occurring across Iran. A total of seven differing checklists were identified as containing aspects of structural or non-structural aspects of building resilience. The World Health Organization (WHO) has authored three checklists and four others were developed independently. The structural resilience domain includes building integrity, building materials, design standards, and previous event damages as important elements to determine resilience. Within the internal safety and resilience domains, 11 differing elements were identified as important to non-structural or internal infrastructure resilience. These included the safety of power, water, telecommunication, medical gas supply, and medical equipment resupply systems. Independent evaluation methods were reported in the majority of articles, with a small number highlighting the benefits of both self-evaluation and independent review processes. Implementation of training programs to evaluators was mentioned in three papers with the assessor’s knowledge and understanding of all checklist elements being highlighted as important to the validity of the evaluation. Conclusion: The review identified the assessment of hospital resilience as important for management to determine areas of vulnerability within the hospital’s infrastructure and to inform improvement strategies. Assessment criteria must be comprehensive, highlighting structural and non-structural aspects of facility infrastructure. These assessments are best done as a multi-disciplinary collective of experts, involving hospital employees in the journey. This collaborative approach provides a key educational tool for developing disaster capacity, engaging ownership of the process, and the resulting improvements. The on-going development of health facility and wider health system resilience must remain a key strategic focus of national governments and health authorities. The development of standardized procedures and guidelines must be embedded into daily practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority (68%; n = 15) of articles reviewed were quantitative analyses of hospital resilience or preparedness. 23–27,29,30,32–35,38,39,43,46 Of the remaining articles, Toner, et al 41 explored hospital resilience through qualitative interviews and assessments, and a further six studies used a mixed methodology. 22,28,31,36,37,42…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safer Hospital Infrastructure Assessments for Socio-Natural Disaster – A Scoping Review

Luke¹,

Franklin²,

Aitken³

et al. 2021

Prehosp. Disaster med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An assessment criterion that was established by the WHO and adopted in the Hospital Safety Index (HSI) has been utilized as a guideline to judge the level of preparedness for each indicator. Proportions of indicators were calculated and preparedness was classified as High (= 66% -100%), Medium (36-65%) or Low (= 35%-0%) based on the actual range of the indicators (Ardalan et al, 2014;Sunindijo et al, 2019;WHO, 2016WHO, , 2019WHO, , 2012.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Assessment of Saudi Hospitals’ Disaster Preparedness

Alsalem

Alghanim

2021

EUROPEAN J ENV PUBLI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aims to assess the level of Saudi Hospital Disaster Preparedness (HDP). Methods: This study has utilized exploratory quantitative design with a structured self-administered questionnaire. It has adopted a convenient sampling technique, which has included nine hospitals within three Saudi Cities (Riyadh, Jeddah, and Dammam). The questionnaire contains 48 indicators in six HDP domains: planning, structural, non-structural, management, functional, and human resource competency capacities. Results: The level of Saudi HDP was 69.8%. The domain of management capacity had the highest level of preparedness, at 83.6%, while human resources competency capacity was the least prepared, at 63%. The Spearman correlation revealed a positive significant relationship between preparing to respond to a disaster when occur and all HDP capacity indicators, r (46) = 0.424, p = < .001. A one-way ANOVA test showed a significant difference in HDP between the three cities; Riyadh hospitals were the most prepared, F (2, 313) = 4.343, p < .05. It also showed that there were significant differences in preparedness between the MOH, other governmental, and university hospitals; university hospitals were the most prepared, F (2, 313) = 5.087, p < .05. Conclusion:Overall, Saudi hospitals have a high level of HDP, which indicates that they are likely to function well in the eventuality of disasters. There is a great opportunity to strengthen HDP capacities to improve hospital readiness in the medium-long term. The implemented HDP assessment tool should be built into hospitals' systems and coordinated among involved governmental sectors.

show abstract

“…Some of the reviewed ones are reports suggested by the WHO as we adapted in this study and guidelines [19]. Most of them are based on a questionnaire-based assessment tool [22][23][24][25][26][27]. Apart from this type of disaster preparedness evaluation studies, there are MCDM-based papers in the literature.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hospital Preparedness Assessment against COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study in Turkish Tertiary Healthcare Services

Gül

Yücesan

2021

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hospitals play a critical role in providing essential health services to people in the healthcare system. Healthcare systems around the world have faced some issues in responding to patients with various disease severity levels. Nowadays, the world as a whole is combating a pandemic called COVID-19. This pandemic causes an increase in the disease spread with fluctuated patient demand that may affect the hospitals’ capacity and overall functioning and risks rising based on hospital site, medical staff, patient, and healthcare process. To deal with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals must have completed their preparations before these events occur. Therefore, this study proposes an integrated approach based on the decision-making concept with interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets (IVSFSs) to the hospital preparedness assessment problem. A technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) extended with IVSFSs is used to rank hospitals from Turkish tertiary healthcare services. A checklist reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) is adapted to conform to Turkey’s COVID-19 pandemic management. Ninety-nine subcomponents of the adapted checklist under ten components are weighted by interval-valued spherical weighted arithmetic mean (IVSWAM) operator. The hospitals in the problem are then ranked concerning these weighted subcomponents. With the proposed approach, a COVID-19 pandemic preparedness index is determined for the observed hospitals. In addition, a separate index based on each main component (component-based ranking) is determined. These indexes are vital indicators in determining in which aspects hospitals are ready and in what aspects hospitals are not prepared for pandemics. The proposed approach can be adaptable and applied by national policymakers in assessing all hospitals of the country against the COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

Hospital safety index: assessing the readiness and resiliency of hospitals in Indonesia

Cited by 33 publications

References 7 publications

Safer Hospital Infrastructure Assessments for Socio-Natural Disaster – A Scoping Review

Safer Hospital Infrastructure Assessments for Socio-Natural Disaster – A Scoping Review

An Assessment of Saudi Hospitals’ Disaster Preparedness

Hospital Preparedness Assessment against COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study in Turkish Tertiary Healthcare Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About