Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T07:48:08.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Disaster Preparedness Based on Simulation Exercises: A Comparison of Two Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2016

Andres Rüter ,
Lisa Kurland ,
Dan Gryth ,
Jason Murphy ,
Monica Rådestad  and
Ahmadreza Djalali
Andres Rüter*
Affiliation:
Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Lisa Kurland
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Dan Gryth
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Section of Anaesthesiology and Intensive care, Stockholm, Sweden
Jason Murphy
Affiliation:
Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Monica Rådestad
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Ahmadreza Djalali
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden Center for Research and Education in Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Novara, Italy.
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Anders Rüter, Sophiahemmet University, Box 5605, S-114 86 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: anders.ruter@shh.se).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to highlight 2 models, the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) and the Disaster Management Indicator model (DiMI), for evaluating the in-hospital management of a disaster situation through simulation exercises.

Methods

Two disaster exercises, A and B, with similar scenarios were performed. Both exercises were evaluated with regard to actions, processes, and structures. After the exercises, the results were calculated and compared.

Results

In exercise A the HICS model indicated that 32% of the required positions for the immediate phase were taken under consideration with an average performance of 70%. For exercise B, the corresponding scores were 42% and 68%, respectively. According to the DiMI model, the results for exercise A were a score of 68% for management processes and 63% for management structure (staff skills). In B the results were 77% and 86%, respectively.

Conclusions

Both models demonstrated acceptable results in relation to previous studies. More research in this area is needed to validate which of these methods best evaluates disaster preparedness based on simulation exercises or whether the methods are complementary and should therefore be used together. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:544–548).

Keywords

hospital disaster preparednesssimulation exerciseevaluationHospital Incident Command SystemDisaster Management Indicator model
Type
Brief Reports
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 544 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Perry, RW, Qurantelli, EL. What is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris Corporation; 2005.Google Scholar
2. Hospital Incident Command System (HICS). The California Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) website. http://www.emsa.ca.gov/disaster_medical_ services_ division_ hospital_incident_command_system_resources. Accessed January 6, 2016.Google Scholar
3. Born, CT, Briggs, SM, Ciraulo, DL, et al. Disasters and mass casualties: I. General principles of response and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(7):388-396.Google Scholar
4. Djalali, A, Castren, M, Hosseinijenab, V, et al. Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) performance in Iran; decision making during disasters. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20(1):14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-20-14.Google Scholar
5. Zane, RD, Prestipino, AL. Implementing the Hospital Emergency Incident Command System: an integrated delivery system’s experience. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2004;19(4):311-317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Nilsson, H, Vikstrom, T, Ruter, A. Quality control in disaster medicine training: initial strategic medical management as an example setting. Am J Disaster Med. 2010;5(1):35-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2010.0004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Nilsson, H, Vikstrom, T, Jonson, C-O. Performance indicators for initial regional medical response to major incidents: a possible quality control tool. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20:81. http://www.sjtrem.com/content/20/1/81.Google Scholar
8. Emergo Train System (ETS). Website. http://www.emergotrain.com/. Accessed February 6, 2015.Google Scholar
9. Debacker, M, Hubloue, I, Dhondt, E, et al. Utstein-style template for uniform data reporting of acute medical response in disasters. PLoS Curr Disasters. 2012 Mar 23. doi: 10.1371/4f6cf3e8df15a.Google Scholar
10. United Nations Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) and the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN/OCHA). Disaster Preparedness for Effective Response. Guidance and Indicator Package for Implementing Priority Five of the Hyogo Framework. www.unisdr.org/files/2909_Disaster preparedness foreffectiveresponse.pdf. Published 2008. Accessed October 19, 2015.Google Scholar