Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Disaster Safety Assessment of Primary Healthcare Facilities: A Cross-Sectional Study in Kurdistan Province of Iran Publisher Pubmed



Yari A1 ; Zarezadeh Y1 ; Fatemi F2 ; Ardalan A3 ; Vahedi S4 ; Yousefikhoshsabeghe H3 ; Boubakran MS5 ; Bidarpoor F1 ; Motlagh ME6
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
  2. 2. Research center for health sciences and technologies, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
  3. 3. Department of Health in Emergencies and Disasters, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  4. 4. Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
  5. 5. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
  6. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

Source: BMC Emergency Medicine Published:2021


Abstract

Background: Kurdistan province of Iran is among disaster prone areas of the country. The Primary Health Care facilities in Iran deliver health services at all levels nationwide. Resiliency and flexibility of such facilities is important when a disaster occurs. Thus, evaluating functional, structural, and non-structural aspects of safety of such facilities is essential. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the instrument used to evaluate four sections of functional, structural, non-structural, and total safety of 805 healthcare facilities in Kurdistan Province was the safety evaluation checklist of primary healthcare centers, provided by the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education. Each section scored from 0 to 100 points, and each section of the safety was classified to three safety classes according to their total score: low (≤34.0), average (34.01–66.0) and high (> 66.0). Results: The levels of functional, structural, non-structural and total safety were equal to 23.8, 20.2, 42.3 and 28.7, out of 100, respectively. Regarding the functional safety, rapid response team scored the highest, while financial affairs scored the lowest. Nevertheless, in structural and non-structural sections, the scores of different items were almost similar. Conclusions: The results of the study revealed that safety score of primary healthcare facilities in general was unsatisfactory. Thus, promoting preparedness, resilience and continuity of service delivery of these facilities are essential to response to disasters and emergencies. The finding of this study could be beneficial for national and provincial decision-makers and policymakers in this regard. © 2021, The Author(s).