Most responding facilities were university or private/contract research facilities (16 [62%] and 5 [19%] facilities, respectively).
From the 56 responding facilities (14.8 %), 38 agreed and were considered eligible, and received questionnaires.
Eighty-eight percent of the responding facilities performed periodical surveillance cultures on all patients.
Over 19 (65.5%) of the responding facilities said that the road access was disrupted during the flood.
These results suggest that responding facilities generally maintained high standards for health and safety and are aware of disease risks.
We divided the responding facilities into three groups and eight subgroups according to the number of hospital beds: small clinics (0 or 1 19 beds); small hospitals (20 100 or 101 200 beds); and large hospitals (201 300, 301 400, 401 500, or >500 beds).
The mean numbers of the responding facilities identifying barriers and facilitating factors are shown in Fig. 7. Furthermore, 28 (96.5%) of the facilities reported that they did not have any emergency preparedness plan in place and that they do not have any early warning mechanisms for a flood.
We also linked data from the CMS POS file to obtain geographic information and additional characteristics of the hospital facilities to allow for comparison of responding versus non-responding facilities.
On the issue of doctors leaving Facility A, the facility manager responded that the facility had recently introduced an incentive package specially for doctors in the maternity department to help maintain the few doctors that were in the department.
You respond – 'five facilities'.
