The Hospital Safety Index (HSI) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) was adopted by most countries to evaluate the safety of hospitals against disasters. This study aimed to assess the status of hospital safety from disasters between 2016 and 2022 in Kermanshah province in Iran.

This is a retrospective longitudinal study which investigated HSI data from 23 hospitals. Data were gathered by Farsi Hospital Safety Index (FHSI) and analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).

The risk of hydro-meteorological (from 43.1 to 32.7) and biological hazards (51.3 to 35.5) significantly decreased. Although structural safety remained constant (from 67.8 to 70.1), nonstructural (from 51.5 to 71.2), and functional (from 47.1 to 71.2) safety scores increased significantly over study period.

The findings revealed hospitals safety in Kermanshah province gradually improved. However, the health-care stakeholders should pay the necessary attention to improving the structural safety of hospitals.

Peru’s health infrastructures, particularly hospitals, are exposed to disaster threats of different natures. Traditionally, earthquakes have been the main disaster in terms of physical and structural vulnerability, but the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has also shown their functional vulnerability. Public hospitals in Lima are very different in terms of year constructed, type of construction, and number of floors, making them highly vulnerable to earthquakes. In addition, they are subject to a high demand for care daily. Therefore, if a major earthquake were to occur in Lima, the hospitals would not have the capacity to respond to the high demand.

The aim of this study was to analyze the Hospital Safety Index (HSI) in hospitals in Lima (Peru).

This was a cross-sectional observational study of 18 state-run hospitals that met the inclusion criteria; open access data were collected for the indicators proposed by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Version 1. Associations between variables were calculated using the chi-square test, considering a confidence level of 95%. A P value less than .05 was considered to determine statistical significance.

The average bed occupancy rate was 90%, the average age was 70 years, on average had one bed per 25,126 inhabitants, and HSI average score was 0.36 with a vulnerability of 0.63. No association was found between HSI and hospital characteristics.

Most of the hospitals were considered Category C in earthquake and disaster safety, and only one hospital was Category A. The hospital situation needs to be clarified, and the specific deficiencies of each institution need to be identified and addressed according to their own characteristics and context.

This research evaluated the resilience of 6 tertiary and rural health facilities within a single Australian Health Service, using the World Health Organization (WHO) Hospital Safety Index (HSI). This adaptation of the HSI was compared with existing national accreditation and facility design Standards to assess disaster preparedness and identify opportunities for improvement.

This cross-sectional descriptive study surveyed 6 hospitals that provide 24/7 emergency department and acute inpatient services. HSI assessments, comprising 151 previously validated criteria, were conducted by Health Service engineers and facility managers before being externally reviewed by independent disaster management professionals.

All facilities were found to be highly disaster resilient, with each recording high HSI scores. Variances in structure, architectural safety, continuity of critical services supply, and emergency plans were consistently identified. Power and water supply vulnerabilities are common to previously reported vulnerabilities in health facilities of developing countries.

Clinical, engineering, and disaster management professionals assessed 6 Australian hospitals using the WHO HSI with each facility scoring highly, genuine vulnerabilities and practical opportunities for improvement were identified. This application of the WHO HSI, intended for use primarily in developing countries and disaster-affected regions, complimented and extended the existing Australian national health service accreditation and facility design Standards. These results support the expansion of existing assessment tools used to assess Australian health facility disaster preparedness and resilience.

For hospitals, learning from disaster response efforts and adapting organizational practices can improve resilience in dealing with future disruptions. However, amidst global disruptions by climate change, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and other disasters, hospitals’ ability to cope continues to be highly variable. Hence, there are increasing calls to improve hospitals’ capabilities to grow and adapt towards enhanced resilience.

This study aims two-fold: (1) to characterize the current state of knowledge about how hospitals are gaining knowledge from their responses to disasters, and (2) to explore how this knowledge can be applied to inform organizational practices for hospital resilience.

This study used Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for data collection and framework for data analysis, Covidence software, and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords relevant to “hospitals,” “learn,” “disaster response,” and “resilience.” The quality appraisal used an adapted version of the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT).

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria and quality appraisal, out of the 420 articles retrieved, 22 articles remained for thematic and content analysis. The thematic analysis included the hospital’s functional (operational) and physical (structural and non-structural) sections. The content analysis followed nine learning areas (Governance and Leadership, Planning and Risk Assessment, Surveillance and Monitoring, Communication and Network Engagement, Staff Practices and Safety, Equipment and Resources, Facilities and Infrastructure, Novelty and Innovation, and Learning and Evaluation).

On applying the Deming cycle, only four studies described a completed learning cycle wherein hospitals adapted their organizational structures using the prior experience and evaluation gained in responding to disaster(s).

There is a gap between hospitals’ organizational learning and institutionalized practice. The conceptualized Hybrid Resilience Learning Framework (HRLF) aims to guide the hospitals’ decision makers in evaluating organizational resilience and knowledge.

In the face of disasters, both the stressful factors and the coping strategies that affect the health care workers (HCWs) should be substantially considered.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Violence against humanitarian health care workers and facilities in situations of armed conflict is a serious humanitarian problem. Targeting health care workers and destroying or looting medical facilities directly or indirectly impacts the delivery of emergency and life-saving medical assistance, often at a time when it is most needed.

Attacks may be intentional or unintentional and can take a range of forms from road blockades and check points which delay or block transport, to the direct targeting of hospitals, attacks against medical personnel, suppliers, patients, and armed entry into health facilities. Lack of access to vital health care services weakens the entire health system and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities, particularly among communities of women, children, the elderly, and the disabled, or anyone else in need of urgent or chronic care. Health care workers, especially local workers, are often the target.

This report reviews the work being spearheaded by the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement on the Health Care in Danger initiative, which aims to strengthen the protections for health care workers and facilities in armed conflicts and ensure safe access for patients. This includes a review of internal reports generated from the expert workshops on a number of topics as well as a number of public sources documenting innovative coping mechanisms adopted by National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The work of other organizations is also briefly examined. This is followed by a review of security mechanisms within the humanitarian sector to ensure the safety and security of health care personnel operating in armed conflicts.

From the existing literature, a number of gaps have been identified with current security frameworks that need to be addressed to improve the safety of health care workers and ensure the protection and access of vulnerable populations requiring assistance. A way forward for policy, research, and practice is proposed for consideration.

While there is work being done to improve conditions for health care personnel and patients, there need to be concerted actions to stigmatize attacks against workers, facilities, and patients to protect the neutrality of the medical mission.

Redwood-CampbellLJ, SekharSN, PersaudCR. Health Care Workers in Danger Zones: A Special Report on Safety and Security in a Changing Environment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(5):1-5.

The assessment of hospital disaster preparedness and response performance is a way to find and remove possible gaps and weaknesses in hospital disaster management effectiveness. The aim of this pilot study was to test the association between the level of preparedness and the level of response performance during a full-scale hospital exercise.

This pilot study was conducted in a hospital during a full-scale exercise in the Piedmont region of Italy. The preparedness evaluation was conducted by a group of three experts, three days before the exercise, and the response evaluation was conducted during the exercise. The functional capacity module was used for preparedness evaluation, and the response performance of the “command and control” function of the hospital was evaluated by nine semiquantitative performance indicators.

The preparedness of the chosen hospital was 59%, while the response performance was evaluated as 70%. The hospital staff conducted Simple Triage and Rapid Transport (START) triage while they received 61 casualties, which was 90% correct for the yellow group and 100% correct for the green group.

This pilot study showed that it is possible to use standardized evaluations tools, to simultaneously assess the relationship between preparedness elements and response performance measures. An experimental study including a group of hospitals, also using more comprehensive evaluation tools, should be done to evaluate the correlation between the level of preparedness and the response performance of a hospital, and the impact of hospital disaster planning, on the outcome of disasters victims.

DjalaliA, CarenzoL, RagazzoniL, AzzarettoM, PetrinoR, Della CorteF, IngrassiaPL. Does Hospital Disaster Preparedness Predict Response Performance During a Full-scale Exercise? A Pilot Study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(4):1-7.

Hospitals are expected to continue to provide medical care during disasters. However, they often fail to function under these circumstances. Vulnerability to disasters has been shown to be related to the socioeconomic level of a country. This study compares hospital preparedness, as measured by functional capacity, between Iran and Sweden.

Hospital affiliation and size, and type of hazards, were compared between Iran and Sweden. The functional capacity was evaluated and calculated using the Hospital Safety Index (HSI) from the World Health Organization. The level and value of each element was determined, in consensus, by a group of evaluators. The sum of the elements for each sub-module led to a total sum, in turn, categorizing the functional capacity into one of three categories: A) functional; B) at risk; or C) inadequate.

The Swedish hospitals (n = 4) were all level A, while the Iranian hospitals (n = 5) were all categorized as level B, with respect to functional capacity. A lack of contingency plans and the availability of resources were weaknesses of hospital preparedness. There was no association between the level of hospital preparedness and hospital affiliation or size for either country.

The results suggest that the level of hospital preparedness, as measured by functional capacity, is related to the socioeconomic level of the country. The challenge is therefore to enhance hospital preparedness in countries with a weaker economy, since all hospitals need to be prepared for a disaster. There is also room for improvement in more affluent countries.

DjalaliA, CastrenM, KhankehH, GrythD, RadestadM, OhlenG, KurlandL. Hospital Disaster Preparedness as Measured by Functional Capacity: a Comparison between Iran and Sweden. Prehosp Disaster Med.2013;28(5):1-8.