Amir Khorram-Manesh1,2, Phatthranit Phattharapornjaroen3, Luc J Mortelmans4, Krzysztof Goniewicz5, Marlous Verheul6, Jarle L Sörensen7, Irene Pereira8,9, Meret E Ricklin10, Roberto Faccincani11, Paul M Dark12, Eric Carlström13,14, Milad Ahmadi Marzaleh15, Mahmoud Reza Peyravi15, Mohammed Al Sultan16, Emelia Santamaria17, John David Comandante18, Frederick Burkle19. 1. Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2. Department of Research and Development, Swedish Armed Forces Center for Defense Medicine, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Center of Excellence, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Center for Research and Education in Emergency Care, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Military University of Aviation, Dęblin, Poland. 6. University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 7. Emergency and Crisis management, Department of Business, School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway. 8. Research group on Emergency and Disaster Medicine (ReGEDiM), Vrije University, Brussels, Belgium. 9. University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal. 10. Department of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 11. Emergency Department, IRCCS San Raffaele, Milano, Italy. 12. Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester PA, Manchester, UK. 13. School of Business, Campus Vestfold, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway. 14. Health and Crisis Management and Policy, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden. 15. Department of Health in Disasters and Emergencies, Health Human Resources Research Center, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. 16. Emergency Department, King Khalid Hospital, Narjan, Saudi Arabia. 17. Health Emergencies and Disasters (HEAD) Study Group, National Institute of Health, University of the Philippines-Manila, Philippines. 18. Department of Emergency Medicine, Prehospital Disaster and Ambulatory Care Medicine, Ospital ng Makati, Makati City, the Philippines. 19. Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the evacuation preparedness of hospitals within the European Union (EU). METHOD: This study consisted of 2 steps. In the first step, a systematic review of the subject matter, according to the PRISMA flow diagram, was performed. Using Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD), and Gothenburg University´s search engine, 11 questions were extracted from the review and were sent to representatives from 15 European Union (EU)- and non-EU countries. RESULTS: The findings indicate that there is neither a full preparedness nor a standard guideline for evacuation within the EU or other non-EU countries in this study. A major shortcoming revealed by this study is the lack of awareness of the untoward consequences of medical decision-making during an evacuation. Some countries did not respond to the questions due to the lack of relevant guidelines, instructions, or time. CONCLUSION: Hospitals are exposed to internal and external incidents and require an adequate evacuation plan. Despite many publications, reports, and conclusions on successful and unsuccessful evacuation, there is still no common guide for evacuation, and many hospitals lack the proper preparedness. There is a need for a multinational collaboration, specifically within the EU, to establish such an evacuation planning or guideline to be used mutually within the union and the international community.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the evacuation preparedness of hospitals within the European Union (EU). METHOD: This study consisted of 2 steps. In the first step, a systematic review of the subject matter, according to the PRISMA flow diagram, was performed. Using Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD), and Gothenburg University´s search engine, 11 questions were extracted from the review and were sent to representatives from 15 European Union (EU)- and non-EU countries. RESULTS: The findings indicate that there is neither a full preparedness nor a standard guideline for evacuation within the EU or other non-EU countries in this study. A major shortcoming revealed by this study is the lack of awareness of the untoward consequences of medical decision-making during an evacuation. Some countries did not respond to the questions due to the lack of relevant guidelines, instructions, or time. CONCLUSION: Hospitals are exposed to internal and external incidents and require an adequate evacuation plan. Despite many publications, reports, and conclusions on successful and unsuccessful evacuation, there is still no common guide for evacuation, and many hospitals lack the proper preparedness. There is a need for a multinational collaboration, specifically within the EU, to establish such an evacuation planning or guideline to be used mutually within the union and the international community.
Authors: Krzysztof Goniewicz; Mariusz Goniewicz; Anna Włoszczak-Szubzda; Dorota Lasota; Frederick M Burkle; Marta Borowska-Stefańska; Szymon Wiśniewski; Amir Khorram-Manesh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 4.614