Current Perspectives and Concerns Facing Hospital Evacuation: The Results of a Pilot Study and Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the evacuation preparedness of hospitals within the European Union (EU). METHOD: This study consisted of 2 steps. In the first step, a systematic review of the subject matter, according to the PRISMA flow diagram, was performed. Using Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD), and Gothenburg University´s search engine, 11 questions were extracted from the review and were sent to representatives from 15 European Union (EU)- and non-EU countries. RESULTS: The findings indicate that there is neither a full preparedness nor a standard guideline for evacuation within the EU or other non-EU countries in this study. A major shortcoming revealed by this study is the lack of awareness of the untoward consequences of medical decision-making during an evacuation. Some countries did not respond to the questions due to the lack of relevant guidelines, instructions, or time. CONCLUSION: Hospitals are exposed to internal and external incidents and require an adequate evacuation plan. Despite many publications, reports, and conclusions on successful and unsuccessful evacuation, there is still no common guide for evacuation, and many hospitals lack the proper preparedness. There is a need for a multinational collaboration, specifically within the EU, to establish such an evacuation planning or guideline to be used mutually within the union and the international community.

Defining and Operationalizing Disaster Preparedness in Hospitals: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: 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.

Disaster Exercises to Prepare Hospitals for Mass-Casualty Incidents: Does it Contribute to Preparedness or is it Ritualism?

IntroductionThe central question this study sought to answer was whether the team members of Strategic Crisis Teams (SCTs) participating in mass-casualty incident (MCI) exercises in the Netherlands learn from their participation. METHODS: Evaluation reports of exercises that took place at two different times were collected and analyzed against a theoretical model with several dimensions, looking at both the quality of the evaluation methodology (three criteria: objectives described, link between objective and items for improvement, and data-collection method) and the learning effect of the exercise (one criterion: the change in number of items for improvement). RESULTS: Of all 32 evaluation reports, 81% described exercise objectives; 30% of the items for improvement in the reports were linked to these objectives, and 22% of the 32 evaluation reports used a structured template to describe the items for improvement. In six evaluation categories, the number of items for improvement increased between the first (T1) and the last (T2) evaluation report submitted by hospitals. The number of items remained equal for two evaluation categories and decreased in six evaluation categories. CONCLUSION: The evaluation reports do not support the ideal-typical disaster exercise process. The authors could not establish that team members participating in MCI exercises in the Netherlands learn from their participation. More time and effort must be spent on the development of a validated evaluation system for these simulations, and more research into the role of the evaluator is needed.Verheul MLMI, Dückers MLA, Visser BB, Beerens RJJ, Bierens JJLM. Disaster exercises to prepare hospitals for mass-casualty incidents: does it contribute to preparedness or is it ritualism? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(4):387-393.