| Summary: | Prasit Wuthisuthimethawee,1 Amir Khorram-Manesh2 1Department of Emergency Medicine, Songklanagarind Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand; 2Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, SwedenCorrespondence: Prasit WuthisuthimethaweeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Songklanagarind Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, ThailandTel +66 74451705Fax +66 74451704Email prasit0552002@yahoo.comIntroduction: Safe hospitals are crucial in the management of major incidents and disasters. A hospital self-assessment tool was developed for Thailand to identify gaps and shortcomings in hospital preparedness. However, this tool lacks the ability to determine the level of preparedness and cannot be used to standardize hospital readiness and enable continuous quality control.Objective: The aim of this study was to test a developed scoring hospital assessment tool to evaluate the level of hospital preparedness and enable quality control and compare the results of various hospitals.Material and Methods: Using the nominal group technique, three experts evaluated all sections of the previously developed hospital self-assessment tool and recognized that each element could be answered by one of the three options: Yes, Not Known, and No. A pilot study was conducted in 11 hospitals to evaluate the feasibility of the tool. The number of Yes responses was divided by the total number of elements to represent the level of hospital preparedness and reported as either low (0‒59), average (60‒79), or good (80‒100). The results identified areas for improvement.Results: Eleven out of 13 hospitals (85% response rate) in two provinces were enrolled in the study. The results showed various levels of preparedness in all the investigated hospitals. Two hospitals had low preparedness and needed great improvements. The remaining nine hospitals in the two provinces had average preparedness levels and needed improvements. One of the nine hospitals had a score very close to achieving good preparedness. No significant parameters were associated with the preparedness level.Conclusion: The developed scoring assessment tool for hospital safety demonstrated high utilization feasibility and indicated preparedness levels. The scoring tool also provided assessment levels that could enable continuous quality evaluation and improvements.Keywords: disasters, emergencies, hospital assessment tool, mass casualty incident
|
|---|
