The Application of Hospital Safety Index for Analyzing Primary Healthcare Center (PHC) Disaster and Emergency Preparedness

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines the primary healthcare center (PHC) as a whole-of-society approach to health that aims at ensuring the highest possible level of health and well-being and their equitable distribution by focusing on people’s needs as early as possible along the continuum from health promotion and disease prevention to treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care, and as close as feasibly possible to people’s everyday environment. PHCs are expected to remain operational when disasters occur. This study aimed to assess the PHC disaster preparedness level in Indonesia using The Hospital Safety Index (HSI) from WHO/PAHO. Eleven PHCs located in four provinces in Indonesia, i.e., Jakarta, Yogyakarta, North Sumatera, and West Java, were selected. Data were collected through interviews, focus-group discussions (FGDs), observations, and document reviews. The parameters assessed were all types of hazards, structural or construction safety, nonstructural safety, and functional attributes. The results show that the overall score of HSI for PHCs in Jakarta (0.674) and North Sumatera (0.752) fell into the “A” category, meaning that these PHCs would likely remain operational in the case of disasters. Meanwhile, the overall HSI scores for PHCs in West Java (0.601) and Yogyakarta (0.602) were between 0.36 and 0.65, or in “B” category, meaning that these PHCs would be able to recover during disasters but several services would be exposed to danger. The results suggested that there are several gaps that need urgent interventions to be applied for the structural safety of buildings, water supply systems, fuel storage, disaster committee organization, furniture and fittings, offices and storage equipment, as well as increasing the capacity of workers through a structured and systematic training framework for disaster readiness. The results from this study can be used for prioritizing budgets and resource allocation, cost planning, providing specific solutions for local and national government, and efforts to achieve disaster risk reduction.

Related collections

Most cited references 28

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Hospital disaster preparedness in Los Angeles County.

Amy Kaji, Andrew Lewis (2006)

There are no standardized measures of hospital disaster preparedness or hospital "surge capacity." To characterize disaster preparedness among a cohort of hospitals in Los Angeles County, focusing on practice variation, plan characteristics, and surge capacity. This was a descriptive, cross-sectional survey study, followed by on-site verification. Forty-five 9-1-1 receiving hospitals in Los Angeles County, CA, participated. Evaluations of hospital disaster plan structure, vendor agreements, modes of communication, medical and surgical supplies, involvement of law enforcement, mutual aid agreements with other facilities, drills and training, surge capacity (assessed by monthly emergency department diversion status, available beds, ventilators, and isolation rooms), decontamination capability, and pharmaceutical stockpiles were assessed by survey. Forty-three of 45 hospital plans (96%) were based on the Hospital Emergency Incident Command System, and the majority had protocols for hospital lockdown (100%), canceling elective surgeries (93%), early discharge (98%), day care for children of staff (88%), designating victim overflow areas (96%), and predisaster "preferred" vendor agreements (96%). All had emergency medical services-compatible radios and more than three days' worth of supplies. Fewer hospitals involved law enforcement (56%) or had mutual aid agreements with other hospitals (20%) or long-term care facilities (7%). Although the vast majority (96%) conducted multiagency drills, only 16% actually involved other agencies in their disaster training. Only 13 of 45 hospitals (29%) had a surge capacity of greater than 20 beds. Less than half (42%) had ten or more isolation rooms, and 27 hospitals (60%) were on diversion greater than 20% of the time. Thirteen hospitals (29%) had immediate access to six or more ventilators. Less than half had warm-water decontamination (42%), while approximately one half (51%) had a chemical antidote stockpile and 42% had an antibiotic stockpile. Among hospitals in Los Angeles County, disaster preparedness and surge capacity appear to be limited by a failure to fully integrate interagency training and planning and a severely limited surge capacity, although there is a generally high level of availability of equipment and supplies.