A hospital system's response to a hurricane offers lessons, including the need for mandatory interfacility drills.

Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 08/2012; 31(8):1814-21. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0154
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This case study explores the lessons learned when the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, a large, integrated health network in New York, evacuated three hospitals at high risk of flooding from Hurricane Irene in August 2011. The episode resulted in the evacuation, transport, and placement of 947 patients without any resulting deaths or serious injuries. This case demonstrates the utility of having in place a functional evacuation plan, such as the one North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System developed through its own full-scale exercises in the years following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In those drills, the health system discovered that it needed to abandon its 1:1 matching of patients to available beds in the region in favor of the group transport of patients with similar needs to facilities that could accommodate them. Despite its overall success, the system identified the need for internal improvements, including automated patient tracking through the use of bar-coded wristbands and identification and training of additional backup personnel for its emergency operations center. Among other changes, policy makers at the state and federal levels should consider mandating full-scale interfacility evacuation drills to refine mechanisms to send and receive patients.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This perspective paper was intended to raise awareness and the urgency of needing additional evacuation-related, hospital building design policies. We addressed the challenges to maintain the integrity of exits and inadequate hospital design considerations for individuals with restricted mobility. Hospitals are occupied by people who may have restricted mobility and visitors who are likely unfamiliar with their surroundings. A hospital fire threatens all people in the building, but especially patients in the intensive care unit who are frail and have limited mobility. Evacuating immobile patients is complex, involving horizontal and vertical evacuation approaches. Hospital design must consider the needs of individuals with restricted mobility, who are the most vulnerable in case of a hospital fire. Consequently, we urge that acutely ill patients and others with restricted mobility should occupy units located on the ground floor or Level 2. In addition, when configuring the physical environment of hospitals, providing step-free ground floor access (indoor or outdoor ramps) and evacuation aids for vertical evacuation is crucial. Step-free ground floor access between Level 2 and the ground floor should be wide enough to allow transporting patients on their beds. A standard revision to include these recommendations is desperately needed.
    Nursing Forum 01/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 9/11 attacks reframed the narrative regarding disaster medicine. Bypass strategies have been replaced with absorption strategies and are more specifically described as "surge capacity." In the succeeding years, a consensus has coalesced around stratifying the surge capacity into three distinct tiers: conventional, contingency, and crisis surge capacities. For the purpose of this work, these three distinct tiers were adapted specifically to burn surge for disaster planning activities at hospitals where burn centers are not located. A review was conducted involving published plans, other related academic works, and findings from actual disasters as well as modeling. The aim was to create burn-specific definitions for surge capacity for hospitals where a burn center is not located. The three-tier consensus description of surge capacity is delineated in their respective stratifications by what will hereinafter be referred to as the three "S's"; staff, space, and supplies (also referred to as supplies, pharmaceuticals, and equipment). This effort also included the creation of a checklist for nonburn center hospitals to assist in their development of a burn surge plan. Patients with serious burn injuries should always be moved to and managed at burn centers, but during a medical disaster with significant numbers of burn injured patients, there may be impediments to meeting this goal. It may be necessary for burn injured patients to remain for hours in an outlying hospital until being moved to a burn center. This work was aimed at aiding local and regional hospitals in developing an extemporizing measure until their burn injured patients can be moved to and managed at a burn center(s).
    Journal of burn care & research: official publication of the American Burn Association 06/2013; · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The creation of hospitals safe from disaster is an area of increasing public policy. The vulnerability of hospitals to damage and destruction during an event has profound implications for the health of a community. Although hospital evacuations do occur in Australia, their prevalence is unknown and what leads to a successful evacuation is poorly understood. This article reviewed the worldwide hospital evacuation literature to determine the prevalence of hospital evacuations and common precipitants for evacuation. Factors leading to safe evacuation and areas of ongoing challenge were identified. The findings highlight the need for more structured and detailed reporting of hospital responses to disaster. A number of lessons can be learned from hospitals that have experienced evacuation. Most critically, all hospitals must have a practised, detailed hospital evacuation plan existing before an impending threat. There are also areas for improvement in the areas of assessing the risk to the facility, communications, leadership, logistics, staffing and planning. These lessons should be included into comprehensive, detailed evacuation plans for all Australian hospitals, supported by a national framework that standardises planning and response.
    Emergency medicine Australasia: EMA 11/2013; · 0.99 Impact Factor