Department-level planning and preparedness: A toolkit to assist in full-facility hospital evacuation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A full-facility hospital evacuation is highly complex and disruptive to ongoing patient care. In certain emergency situations and after careful consideration and exhaustion of other options, the decision to fully evacuate a hospital facility should be made to ensure the safety of all staff, patients, and visitors. Current literature suggests that staff are unprepared for these situations due to a lack of training and experience. Authors of this paper created a departmental-level toolkit to supplement current hospital evacuation policies in order to assist clinical leaders with planning and preparedness for full-facility evacuations. With the support of evidence-based literature from various countries, this paper discusses key concerns identified in previous hospital evacuations including staff shortages, limited formal partnerships, and availability of appropriate resources. By addressing these shortcomings, the organization can develop further resilience against the negative impacts of a full-facility evacuation. Additionally, this paper outlines recommendations for training and exercises programs to further prepare the staff for full-facility evacuations. In the growing field of emergency management, the implementation of additional resources built on evidence-based research is necessary to increase hospital preparedness in the face of emergencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".