Hospital Readiness Assessment for Disasters Using the Hospital Safety Index in Several Accredited Hospitals in Yogyakarta Province

Abstract

Indonesia is a disaster-prone country, so research on hospital preparedness for disasters is necessary. One of the tools to measure the readiness of hospitals in facing disasters using the Hospital Safety Index (HSI) from WHO. This study aims to determine the readiness of hospitals to deal with disasters using HSI. Research location in PKU Yogyakarta, PKU Bantul, PKU Kotagede, PKU Nanggulan, and PKU Wonosari. These PKU that have been accredited by the Hospital Accreditation Committee in Yogyakarta Province. The approach used is descriptive qualitative. The independent variable is the HSI from WHO, and the dependent variable is the Hospital Accreditation Committee (Komite Akreditasi Rumah Sakit/KARS) accredited hospital. The respondents are the person in charge of the structural part of the disaster management system. The checklist refers to the HSI form from WHO. Each statement provides three types of answers, namely low, medium, and high. All statements are a total number of low scores, medium scores, and high scores using the HSI calculator. The results of the study are that hospitals with plenary accreditation have higher HSI scores so that they prepared to face disasters than hospitals that have not been plenarily accredited. Indonesia termasuk negara yang rawan bencana sehingga penelitian mengenai kesiapan rumah sakit terhadap bencana perlu dilakukan. Salah satu alat ukur kesiapan rumah sakit menghadapi bencana menggunakan Hospital Safety Index (HSI) dari WHO. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kesiapan rumah sakit menghadapi bencana menggunakan HSI. Lokasi penelitian adalah beberapa rumah sakit yang telah terakreditasi oleh Komite Akreditasi Rumah Sakit di Provinsi Yogyakarta yaitu PKU Yogyakarta, PKU Bantul, PKU Kotagede, PKU Nanggulan, PKU Wonosari, Pendekatan yang digunakan adalah deskriptif kualitatif. Variabel independen yaitu Hospital Safety Index dari WHO, variabel dependen yaitu rumah sakit terakreditasi Komite Akreditasi Rumah Sakit (KARS). Respondent yaitu penanggungjawab di bagian struktural sistem penanggulangan bencana. Checklist merujuk pada formulir HSI dari WHO. Setiap pernyataan menyediakan tiga jenis jawaban yaitu rendah, sedang dan tinggi. Seluruh pernyataan ditotal jumlah skor rendah, skor sedang dan skor tingginya menggunakan HSI calculator. Hasil penelitian yaitu rumah sakit dengan akreditasi paripurna mempunyai skor HSI yang lebih tinggi sehingga lebih siap menghadapi bencana dibanding rumah sakit yang belum terakreditasi paripurna.

Evaluating the level of disaster preparedness of Tunisian University Hospitals using the Hospital Safety Index: a nationwide cross-sectional study

“…The findings of this study are in line with literature explaining the low level of structural safety due to the lack of knowledge, lack of norms, and budgetary shortfall 13,[22][23][24][25][26][27] , thus raising awareness about the importance of maintaining good structural safety of the facility, providing resources (mainly guidelines) and updating the knowledge of technical personnel in charge of structural components of the facility are some of the possible solutions. In addition, most of the UHs included in this study have had several expansions throughout the years, which has been proven to be one of the major causes to reduce structural safety, as it does not necessarily take into account the nature of the surrounding land and its vulnerability to natural hazards 26 . This, in Tunisia, is mainly due to lack of structured furfur planning and well performed study of needs.…”

A Qualitative Study on the Use of the Hospital Safety Index and the Formulation of Recommendations for Future Adaptations

“…Although it is estimated that the HSI has been used to assess the safety of more than 3500 facilities worldwide [ 6 ], scientific publications on it are scant. Most of the studies found in the literature refer to a few countries, and they are either reporting the results of HSI assessments [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], comparing preparedness across cities [ 17 ], or adapting the tool to specific contexts [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. There is a lack of studies on the methodological implications of using the HSI as a primary data collection tool and a shortage of qualitative studies.…”