The Feasibility of Implementing the Flexible Surge Capacity Concept in Bangkok: Willing Participants and Educational Gaps

Phatthranit Phattharapornjaroen, Viktor Glantz, Eric Carlström, Lina Dahlén Holmqvist, Yuwares Sittichanbuncha and Amir Khorram-Manesh
Additional contact information
Phatthranit Phattharapornjaroen: Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
Viktor Glantz: Trauma Unit, Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
Eric Carlström: Institute of Healthcare Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, 40100 Gothenburg, Sweden
Lina Dahlén Holmqvist: Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
Yuwares Sittichanbuncha: Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Amir Khorram-Manesh: Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 15, 1-11

Abstract: The management of emergencies consists of a chain of actions with the support of staff, stuff, structure, and system, i.e., surge capacity. However, whenever the needs exceed the present resources, there should be flexibility in the system to employ other resources within communities, i.e., flexible surge capacity (FSC). This study aimed to investigate the possibility of creating alternative care facilities (ACFs) to relieve hospitals in Bangkok, Thailand. Using a Swedish questionnaire, quantitative data were compiled from facilities of interest and were completed with qualitative data obtained from interviews with key informants. Increasing interest to take part in a FSC system was identified among those interviewed. All medical facilities indicated an interest in offering minor treatments, while a select few expressed interest in offering psychosocial support or patient stabilization before transport to major hospitals and minor operations. The non-medical facilities interviewed proposed to serve food and provide spaces for the housing of victims. The lack of knowledge and scarcity of medical instruments and materials were some of the barriers to implementing the FSC response system. Despite some shortcomings, FSC seems to be applicable in Thailand. There is a need for educational initiatives, as well as a financial contingency to grant the sustainability of FSC.

Keywords: alternative care facilities; disasters; flexible surge capacity; major incidents and disasters; surge capacity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7793/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7793/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:7793-:d:599485

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().