Sonderlagen und Gefahrenabwehr in deutschen Krankenhäusern – eine Umfrage zum Ist-Zustand

BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH QUESTION: In case of events such as a cyber attack or a mass casualty incident, ad hoc measures have to be taken in hospitals. As part of the critical infrastructure, hospitals are required by law to prepare, update and exercise alarm and emergency plans for various special situations. The processes and instruments involved for emergency response are defined in the hospital alert and emergency planning. The present study aims to explain with which resources and for which special situations hospitals are prepared. METHODS: A prospective, exploratory, anonymous survey of hospitals in Germany was conducted. Hospitals with both internal medicine and surgery departments were included. Out of 2497 hospitals listed in the German Hospital Directory (www.deutsches-krankenhaus-verzeichnis.de), 1049 met the inclusion criteria. After correcting for hospital groups with shared administrations, 850 employees were identified and contacted by e‑mail. Quality and risk management managers were asked about resources, risks, and content of their own hospital alert and emergency planning using a standardized questionnaire. The survey was conducted using the online platform EFS Survey (Tivian XI GmbH, Cologne) via www.unipark.de. Access to the survey was via a nonpersonalized hyperlink. Apart from the size and type of hospital surveyed, no data were collected that would allow identification of an individual person. RESULTS: Of the participating hospitals 45% (n = 43) were primary care hospitals, 24% (n = 23) were specialty care hospitals, 10% (n = 9) were nonuniversity maximum care hospitals, and 21% (n = 20) were university maximum care hospitals. In total 95 hospitals participated in the survey, of which 98% (n = 93) reported having a hospital alert and emergency plan. Preparation for individual scenarios varied widely. Of the participating hospitals 45% (n = 43) reported having been the target of cyber attacks with an emphasis on maximum care hospitals (55%, n = 11 of 20). Technical redundancy for computer systems is available in 67% (n = 63) of participating hospitals, while independent means of communication exist in 50% (n = 47) of hospitals. A physician-staffed crisis and disaster management unit existed in 60% (n = 56) of the surveyed hospitals. At least a part time position for planning issues was installed in 12 hospitals. CONCLUSION: Most participating hospitals are aware of the need for a hospital alert and emergency plan and have various scenario-specific plans in place. Especially mass casualty events, fire and hospital evacuation scenarios are uniformly covered among participating hospitals; however, gaps appear to exist not only for chemical, biological or radionuclear situations but also especially in the area of extreme weather events and infrastructure failures. Only about two thirds of all participating hospitals have contingency plans for water supply and/or heating failures. An important limitation of the study is the comparatively low response rate of 12.9% (n = 95 of 850). While primary care hospitals were underrepresented in the study, 32% of Germany’s larger hospitals (> 800 beds) participated. In the future, there is a particular need to engage enough medical staff in the area of hospital alert and emergency planning and refunding of these measures by hospitals.