**2. Aim**

The main aim of the study is to investigate and to collect data on the competences of healthcare workers, in addition to assessing the preparedness of hospitals for mass-casualty incidents. An additional aim is to use the data from this initial survey to design a more comprehensive analysis of disaster preparedness (preparedness is defined by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction as knowledge, capabilities and actions of governments, organizations, community groups and individuals "to e ffectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from, the impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events or conditions), as well as new training and exercise models, which could improve the preparedness of health services for mass-casualty incidents and disasters.

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

#### *3.1. Test Site*

The study was conducted between 10 and 21 February 2020 at Public University Hospital No. 1 (polish SPSK No. 1) in Lublin. This hospital was selected as one of the largest hospitals in the Lublin region, and for this reason, it was chosen for the pilot study. SPSK No. 1 has a total of about 550 beds (including chemotherapy beds). It employs about 1600 people (including doctors, nurses and other medical personnel, as well as administration, technical, cleaning and service personnel). According to the latest data provided by the hospital, the number of hospitalizations for the academic year of 2017–2018 was about 40,000 cases, and the number of surgical procedures performed was about 19,000. The average time of hospitalization was 4.4 days.

## *3.2. Population Studied*

The quantitative pilot study was conducted in the form of an anonymous questionnaire on a random sample of 134 healthcare workers, which account for 11.1% of the total number of employed healthcare workers at SPSK 1. More than half of them were women (56%). Men, on the other hand, constituted 44% of the research group. The respondents were mostly people with over 20 years of service (41.8%), while less frequently they had 6–10 years of service (19.4%), 0–5 years (16.4%), 11–15 years (12.7%) or 16–20 years (9.7%). Doctors (41.8%) and nurses (46.3%) represented the highest proportion of the study group, whereas 11.9% of respondents were paramedics.

#### *3.3. Study Design*

An extensive analysis of literature, and then the arrangemen<sup>t</sup> of the acquired knowledge through categorization and knowledge mapping, led to the development of a research tool in the form of a close-ended questions questionnaire. A qualitative method was used to verify the research tool and the questionnaire was tested on a sample of 10 people in order to check whether the respondents understood the questions it contained and whether the respondents reacted to some questions. This group was then excluded from the pilot study and their answers were not included in the final analysis. The questionnaire was designed in such a way that the time required to complete it did not exceed 15 min.

#### *3.4. Type of Study*

In the pilot study, an original questionnaire was available in both paper and online versions, and contained 18 closed questions and two additional descriptive questions. The respondents were asked about their own competences, experience, courses, and training completed, as well as knowledge about preparedness of the workplace for mass-casualty incidents. Respondents were also asked to rate their own preparedness on a scale from 1 to 10, as well as the preparedness of the hospital in which they worked, for mass-casualty incidents.

#### *3.5. Data Analysis*

Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26. Frequency analyses, analysis of basic descriptive statistics, correlation analysis using Spearman's rho coefficient, the chi square test of independence, the Student's t-test for dependent samples, a one-way analysis of variance, and a Student's t-test for independent samples in addition to Mann Whitney's test were performed. The level of statistical significance was set at the classic level of α = 0.05.

#### *3.6. Ethical Considerations*

The study is not a medical experiment and legally does not require the approval of the Bioethics Committee.
