ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021
Development and Validation of a Scoring Assessment Tool for Hospital Safety: A Pilot Study Comparing Hospital Preparedness in Thailand.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Learning from the past: a scoping review of hospital disaster preparedness assessment.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSafe hospitals are crucial in the management of major incidents and disasters. A hospital self-assessment tool was developed for Thailand to identify gaps and shortcomings in hospital preparedness. However, this tool lacks the ability to determine the level of preparedness and cannot be used to standardize hospital readiness and enable continuous quality control.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to test a developed scoring hospital assessment tool to evaluate the level of hospital preparedness and enable quality control and compare the results of various hospitals. MATERIAL AND
methodsUsing the nominal group technique, three experts evaluated all sections of the previously developed hospital self-assessment tool and recognized that each element could be answered by one of the three options: Yes, Not Known, and No. A pilot study was conducted in 11 hospitals to evaluate the feasibility of the tool. The number of Yes responses was divided by the total number of elements to represent the level of hospital preparedness and reported as either low (0‒59), average (60‒79), or good (80‒100). The results identified areas for improvement.
resultsEleven out of 13 hospitals (85% response rate) in two provinces were enrolled in the study. The results showed various levels of preparedness in all the investigated hospitals. Two hospitals had low preparedness and needed great improvements. The remaining nine hospitals in the two provinces had average preparedness levels and needed improvements. One of the nine hospitals had a score very close to achieving good preparedness. No significant parameters were associated with the preparedness level.
conclusionThe developed scoring assessment tool for hospital safety demonstrated high utilization feasibility and indicated preparedness levels. The scoring tool also provided assessment levels that could enable continuous quality evaluation and improvements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.