scholarly journals What is a Disaster!? Hospital Disaster Preparedness: Are Hospital Clinical Staff Well-Informed? Does a Mock Disaster Exercise Make a Difference?

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (S1) ◽  
pp. 62-63
Author(s):  
B. Bartley ◽  
L. Walsh ◽  
J. Stella ◽  
J. Fisher
CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-474
Author(s):  
Daniel Kollek ◽  
Joshua Bezanson ◽  
Shawn Carby ◽  
Sharf Chowdhury ◽  
Robert Davidson ◽  
...  

JAMA ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 298 (18) ◽  
pp. 2188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy H. Kaji ◽  
Kristi L. Koenig ◽  
Roger J. Lewis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aram Dobalian ◽  
Michelle D. Balut ◽  
Claudia Der-Martirosian

Abstract Background Most U.S. studies on workforce preparedness have a narrow scope, focusing primarily on perceptions of clinical staff in a single hospital and for one type of disaster. In contrast, this study compares the perceptions of workplace disaster preparedness among both clinical and non-clinical staff at all U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facilities nationwide for three types of disasters (natural, epidemic/pandemic, and manmade). Methods The VA Preparedness Survey used a stratified simple random, web-based survey (fielded from October through December 2018) of all employees at VA medical facilities. We conducted bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to compare the sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions of disaster preparedness between clinical and non-clinical VA staff. Results The study population included 4026 VA employees (2488 clinicians and 1538 non-clinicians). Overall, VA staff were less confident in their medical facility’s ability to respond to epidemic/pandemics and manmade disasters. Depending on the type of disaster, clinical staff, compared to non-clinical staff, were less likely to be confident in their VA medical facility’s ability to respond to natural disasters (OR:0.78, 95% CI:0.67–0.93, p < 0.01), pandemics (OR:0.82, 95% CI:0.70–0.96, p < 0.05), and manmade disasters (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63–0.86, p < 0.001). On the other hand, clinicians, compared to non-clinicians, were 1.45 to 1.78 more likely to perceive their role in disaster response to be important (natural OR:1.57, 95% CI:1.32–1.87; pandemic OR:1.78, 95% CI:1.51–2.10; manmade: OR:1.45; 95% CI: 1.23–1.71; p’s < 0.001), and 1.27 to 1.29 more likely to want additional trainings to prepare for all three types of disasters (natural OR:1.29, 95% CI:1.10–1.51; pandemic OR:1.27, 95% CI:1.08–1.49; manmade OR:1.29; 95% CI:1.09–1.52; p’s < 0.01). Clinicians were more likely to be women, younger, and more educated (p’s < 0.001) than non-clinicians. Compared to clinicians, non-clinical staff had been employed longer with the VA (p < 0.025) and were more likely to have served in the U.S. Armed Forces (p < 0.001). Conclusions These findings suggest both a desire and a need for additional training, particularly for clinicians, and with a focus on epidemics/pandemics and manmade disasters. Training programs should underscore the importance of non-clinical roles when responding to disasters.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlous LMI Verheul ◽  
Michel LA Dückers

AbstractIntroduction:Societies invest substantial amounts of resources on disaster preparedness of hospitals. However, the concept is not clearly defined nor operationalized in the international literature.Aim:This review aims to systematically assess definitions and operationalizations of disaster preparedness in hospitals, and to develop an all-encompassing model, incorporating different perspectives on the subject.Methods:A systematic search was conducted in five databases: Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Disaster Information Management Research Centre, and SafetyLit. Peer-reviewed articles containing definitions and operationalizations of disaster preparedness in hospitals were included. Articles published in languages other than English, or without available full-text, were excluded, as were articles on prehospital care. The findings from literature were used to build a model for hospital disaster preparedness.Results:In the included publications, 13 unique definitions of disaster preparedness in hospitals and 22 different operationalizations of the concept were found. Although the definitions differed in emphasis and width, they also reflected similar elements. Based on an analysis of the operationalizations, nine different components could be identified that generally were not studied in relation to each other. Moreover, publications primarily focused on structure and process aspects of disaster preparedness. The aim of preparedness was described in seven articles.Discussion/Conclusion:This review points at an absence of consensus on the definition and operationalization of disaster preparedness in hospitals. By combining elements of definitions and components operationalized, disaster preparedness could be conceptualized in a more comprehensive and complete way than before. The model presented can guide future disaster preparedness activities and research.


2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Collander ◽  
Brad Green ◽  
Yuri Millo ◽  
Christine Shamloo ◽  
Joyce Donnellan ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectives:The objectives of the study were to develop and evaluate an “all-hazards” hospital disaster preparedness training course that utilizes a combi-nation of classroom lectures, skills sessions, tabletop sessions, and disaster exercises to teach the principles of hospital disaster preparedness to hospital-based employees.Methods:Participants attended a two-day, 16-hour course, entitled Hospital Disaster Life Support (HDLS). The course was designed to address seven core competencies of disaster training for healthcare workers. Specific disaster situations addressed during HDLS included: (1) biological; (2) conventional; (3) radiological; and (4) chemical mass-casualty incidents. The primary goal of HDLS was not only to teach patient care for a disaster, but more important-ly, to teach hospital personnel how to manage the disaster itself. Knowledge gained from the HDLS course was assessed by pre- and post-test evaluations. Additionally, participants completed a course evaluation survey at the conclu-sion of HDLS to assess their attitudes about the course.Results:Participants included 11 physicians, 40 nurses, 23 administrators/direc-tors, and 10 other personnel (n = 84). The average score on the pre-test was 69.1 ±12.8 for all positions, and the post-test score was 89.5 ±6.7, an improve-ment of 20.4 points (p <0.0001, 17.2–23.5).Participants felt HDLS was edu-cational (4.2/5), relevant (4.3/5) and organized (4.3/5).Conclusions:Identifying an effective means of teaching hospital disaster pre-paredness to hospital-based employees is an important task. However, the opti-mal strategy for implementing such education still is under debate.The HDLS course was designed to utilize multiple teaching modalities to train hospital-based employees on the principles of disaster preparedness. Participants of HDLS showed an increase in knowledge gained and reported high satisfaction from their experiences at HDLS. These results suggest that HDLS is an effec-tive way to train hospital-based employees in the area of disaster preparedness.


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion L. Mitchell ◽  
Loretta McKinnon ◽  
Leanne M Aitken ◽  
Sarah Weber ◽  
Sean Birgan ◽  
...  

Purpose – The number of disasters has increased by 30 per cent worldwide in the past 30 years. Nurses constitute the largest clinical group within a hospital and their ability to respond to disasters is crucial to the provision of quality patient care. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a four-year disaster preparedness partnership between two tertiary hospitals from the perspective of executive staff, senior clinical managers and specialist nurses. The national disaster response centre was situated in one hospital and the other hospital was located 3,500 km away. Design/methodology/approach – The intervention involved selected nurses working at the partner hospital to enable familiarisation with policies, procedures and layout in the event of a request for back-up in the event of a national disaster. A mixed-methods design was used to elicit the strengths and limitations of the partnership. Surveys, in-depth interviews and focus groups were used. Findings – In total, 67 participants provided evaluations including ten executive staff, 17 clinical management nurses and 38 nurses from the disaster response team. Improvements in some aspects of communication were recommended. The successful recruitment of highly skilled and committed nurses was a strength. A disaster exercise resulted in 79 per cent of nurses, able and willing to go immediately to the partner hospital for up to 14 days. Research limitations/implications – During the four year partnership, no actual disaster occurred that required support. This limited the ability to fully trial the partnership in an authentic manner. The disaster exercise, although helpful in trialling the processes and assessing nurse availability, it has some limitations. Originality/value – This innovative partnership successfully prepared specialist nurses from geographically distant hospitals for a disaster response. This together with a willingness to be deployed enhanced Australia’s capacity in the event of a disaster.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document