**4. Results**

## *4.1. Frequency Analysis*

In response to the question about participation in a mass-casualty incident or disaster as a healthcare worker, the majority of respondents (74.6%) declared that they had not participated in such an event. More than a quarter of the respondents (25.4%) answered in the affirmative to the analyzed question.

The respondents were asked whether the facility where they currently worked has a plan for dealing with mass-casualty incidents and disasters. Most of the respondents (71.6%) answered "yes" to this question. Only 3% of the respondents answered "no" to this question. More than a quarter of the respondents (25.4%) felt they did not know the answer to this question (Table 3).

The respondents most frequently (77.6%) reported that they were familiar with the procedure for dealing with mass-casualty incidents and disasters. Only 22.4% of the research group was not acquainted with the procedure for handling such situations.

Most of the respondents (79.1%) knew who was responsible for managing mass-casualty incidents and disasters in the facility of their current workplace. On the other hand, 20.9% answered in negatively to this question.

In response to the question concerning the knowledge of the procedures to be followed in the event of evacuation during a mass-casualty incident at their workplace, the majority of respondents (87.3%) answered a ffirmatively. Only 12.7% of respondents did not know the procedures to be followed in this situation.

The respondents were asked whether their workplace had adequate logistical infrastructure for mass-casualty incidents. Most often (41.8%) respondents did not know whether their workplace had such a logistical infrastructure. On the other hand, 39.6% of the respondents believed their workplace to be prepared logistically for mass-casualty incidents. On the other hand, 18.7% of respondents answered negatively to this question.

More than half of the respondents (54.5%) reported a lack of organization with drills regarding disaster managemen<sup>t</sup> at their workplace. In turn, 45.5% of the respondents stated that such activities had been organized at their workplace.

As far as the frequency of organizing drills is concerned, respondents most frequently reported that such drills were organized less frequently than once every 3 years (91.8%). Individual respondents provided the following answers: once every 3 years (3%), once every 2 years (3%) and annually (2.2%). More than half of the respondents (53.7%) had not received training related to disaster preparedness at theircurrentworkplace.However,46.3%ofrespondentsreportedthattheyhadreceivedsuchtraining.

In response to the question concerning knowledge of triage, almost all respondents (99.3%) answered yes. Only one person answered negatively to this question.

#### *4.2. Relationship between Sociodemographic Variables and Evaluation of Preparedness for Mass-Casualty Incidents and Disasters*

The statistical analyses carried out checked the relationship between sociodemographic variables and the evaluation of preparedness for mass-casualty incidents and disasters. To this end, a correlation analysis using Spearman's rho coe fficient and a one-way analysis of variance were performed.

Initially, the relationship between the seniority of the respondents and the evaluation of preparedness for mass-casualty incidents and disasters was tested. For this purpose, correlation analyses using Spearman's rho coe fficient were performed. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1.


**Table 1.** Results of the analysis of correlation between the length of service of the respondents and the evaluation of preparedness for mass-casualty incidents and disasters.

According to the analyses carried out, seniority is positively linked to the evaluation of the preparedness of the current workplace for a mass-casualty incident or disaster (weak link). This shows that the longer the respondents have been working, the better do they evaluate the preparedness of the institution where they work for a mass-casualty incident or disaster.

A one-way analysis of variance was then carried out to see if occupation di fferentiates the evaluation of preparedness for mass-casualty incidents or disasters. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 1.

The results indicate a statistically significant e ffect for assessing the preparedness of the current workplace for a mass-casualty incident or disaster. In order to investigate the exact di fferences, Sidak post hoc tests were performed. The test results show no statistically significant di fference.

**Figure 1.** Average with a confidence interval of 95% for the evaluation of preparedness for mass-casualty incidents and disasters by occupation.

*4.3. Di*ff*erences between the Evaluation of Preparedness for a Mass-Casualty Incident or Disaster in the Current Place of Work and the Evaluation of One's Own Preparedness*

In the next stage of the analyses, it was assessed whether there are differences between the evaluation of one's own preparedness and the evaluation of the current workplace's preparedness for a mass-casualty incident and disaster. For this purpose, Student's t-test was performed for dependent samples. The results of this test are presented in Table 2 and in Figure 2.


**Table 2.** Differences between the evaluation of preparedness for a mass-casualty incident or disaster in the current place of work, and the evaluation of one's own preparedness.

*M*—mean; *Me*—median; *SD*—standard deviation; *Bias.*—bias*; Kurt.—*kurtosis; *Min & Max*.—the lowest and highest value of distribution; *D—*Kolmogorov–Smirnov test result; *p*—significance.

**Figure 2.** Average with a 95% confidence interval for the evaluation of preparedness for a mass-casualty incident or disaster for the current place of work, and one's own preparedness.

The test results indicate statistically significant di fferences. It turned out that the test subjects evaluate their own preparedness for mass-casualty incidents and disasters better than the preparedness of the current place of work. The strength of this e ffect is high.

#### *4.4. Di*ff*erences in the Evaluation of Preparedness for a Mass-Casualty Incident or Disaster Depending on Previous Participation in a Mass-Casualty Incident or Disaster as a Healthcare Professional*

It was assessed whether the subjects who had previously been involved in a mass-casualty incident or disaster as a healthcare worker di ffer in their evaluation of preparedness for such situations from those who had not been involved in such an event. A Mann Whitney test was conducted due to the large numerical di fferences between the analyzed groups. The results are presented in Table 3.


**Table 3.** Di fferences between persons who have been involved in a mass-casualty incident or disaster as a healthcare worker, and persons who have not been involved in such an event in terms of their evaluation of preparedness for a mass-casualty incident or disaster.

*M*—mean; *Me*—median; *SD*—standard deviation; *Bias.*—bias*; Kurt.—*kurtosis; *Min & Max*.—the lowest and highest value of distribution; *D—*Kolmogorov–Smirnov test result; *p*—significance.

The results of the tests indicate a statistically significant e ffect of moderate strength for the evaluation of one's own preparedness for mass-casualty incidents or disasters. As it turns out, respondents who took part in a mass-casualty incident or disaster as a healthcare worker evaluate their own preparedness much better than respondents who had not been involved in such an event.

#### *4.5. Di*ff*erences in the Evaluation of Preparedness for a Mass-Casualty Incident or Disaster Depending on the Organisation of Drills by the Institution and Whether They Were Attended by the Respondents*

In order to check the di fferences in the evaluation of preparedness for mass-casualty incidents or disasters between respondents with di fferent opinions concerning the organization of drills by the institution and depending on whether they took place, Student's t-tests for independent samples and Mann Whitney tests were performed. Initially, a Student's t-test for independent samples was conducted. It was decided to assess whether the respondents whose institution had organized drills regarding disaster managemen<sup>t</sup> di ffered from those whose institution had not conducted such drills in relation to the evaluation of preparedness for such situations. The test results are presented in Table 2.

It was then assessed whether the evaluation of preparedness for such situations is impacted by the frequency of training on what to do in the event of a mass-casualty incident or disaster. Due to significant di fferences in the number of groups compared, Mann Whitney tests were performed.

The results of this test indicate a statistically significant and moderate e ffect for the evaluation of the preparedness of the current workplace for a mass-casualty incident or disaster. This results from the fact that the respondents, whose institution organized drills for such situations once every 3 years or more often, better evaluate the preparedness of the institution than the respondents whose institution organized trainings less frequently than once every 3 years. The results of the tests are presented in Table 4.


*M*—mean; *Me*—median; *SD*—standard deviation; *Bias.*—bias*; Kurt.—*kurtosis; *Min & Max*.—the lowest and highest value of distribution; *D—*Kolmogorov–Smirnov test result; *p*—significance.

It was then assessed whether training in preparation for disasters impacts upon the evaluation of preparedness for mass-casualty incidents or disasters. Student's t-tests for independent tests were performed for this purpose.

The results of this test indicate significant differences for the evaluation of both one's own preparedness and also that of the institution. Both of these effects are of moderate strength. The analysis showed that after training, the respondents evaluate their own and the institution's preparedness for a mass-casualty incident or disaster better than the respondents without such training. Test results are presented in Figure 3.

**Figure 3.** Average with a 95% confidence interval for evaluations of preparedness for mass-casualty incidents and disasters, categorized by participation in training related to preparation for such situations.
