Ready, aye ready? Support mechanisms for healthcare workers in emergency planning: A critical gap analysis of three hospital emergency plans
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In response to the 2003 global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and the threat of pandemic influenza, Canadian hospitals have been actively developing and revising their emergency plans. Healthcare workers are a particularly vulnerable group at risk of occupational exposure during infectious disease outbreaks, as seen during SARS and as documented/reported in the recent National Survey of the Work and Health of Nurses (Statistics Canada, 2006). Approximately one third of Canadian nurses identified job strain and poor health, related to their work environment. Three years after SARS, this article presents a critical analysis of the gaps of three hospital pandemic influenza plans in the context of established organizational supports for healthcare workers.Methods: Hospital pandemic influenza plans were obtained from institutional representatives in three Ontario cities. Qualitative gap analysis of these plans was conducted using a checklist of 11 support categories, developed from a review of existing literature and findings from a previous study of focus groups with emergency and critical nurses.Results: Support mechanisms were identified in the plans; however, gaps were evident in preparation for personal protective equipment, education, and informational support, and support during quarantine. Hospital emergency planning could be more robust by including additional organizational supports such as emotional/psychological support services, delineating management responsibilities, human resources, vaccine/ anti-viral planning, recognition/compensation, media strategies, and professional development.Conclusions: Since the 2003 SARS outbreak, hospitals have invested in pandemic planning, as evidenced by the comprehensive plans examined here. Organizational support mechanisms for healthcare workers were included in these hospital plans; however, the gaps identified here may have serious implications for employee health and safety, and overall response during a large scale infectious disease outbreak. The authors provide a number of recommendations for consideration in infectious disease pandemic plan development to better support the healthcare workers in their roles as first responders.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle