Briefs in Assessing the Adequacy of Health Care Facilities’ Fixed Assets

Tatiana Antipova, Alexander Zhelnin, Iuliia Zhelnina

Federal Research Institute for Health Organization and Informatics of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia;
Perm Krai Clinical Hospital, Perm, Russia

Cite: Antipova T., Zhelnin A., Zhelnina I. Briefs in Assessing the Adequacy of Health Care Facilities’ Fixed Assets. J. Digit. Sci. 4(1), 85 – 91 (2022).

Abstract. This work considers some procedures to assess the adequacy of fixed assets for Health Care facilities activity. In terms of effectiveness, equitable distribution examines whether limited resources are directed toward improving the health of the population in the delivery of health care services. Assessing the adequacy of health care resources examines the extent to which resources are used to provide health system outcomes and/or achieve health system goals. The results of such an assessment: on the one hand can prevent waste of limited health care resources, and another hand to increase effectiveness of health care services.

Keywords: health care, facilities, nonfinancial assets, assessing, adequacy, effectiveness, efficacy, evaluation.

  1. United Nations Secretary-General, Report of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology Relating to Disaster Risk Reduction, A/71/644), 2016, pp. 1–41, (Accessed 06 June 2022).
  2. World Health Organization (WHO), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Delivering Quality Health Services: a Global Imperative for Universal Health Coverage, 2018, p. 93.
  3. World Health Organization (WHO), Comprehensive Safe Hospital Framework, 2015, pp. 1–12.
  4. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), International Science Council (ISC), Hazard Definition & Classification Review: Technical Report, 2020, pp. 1–88. (Accessed 10 June 2022).
  5. World Health Organization (WHO), Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management Framework, 2019, pp. 1–31. (Accessed 10 June 2022).
  6. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), GAR, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2019, pp. 35–78. (Accessed 2 September 2021).
  7. Antipova T. (2021) Digital View on COVID-19 Impact. In: Antipova T. (eds) Comprehensible Science. ICCS 2020. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 186, pp. 155-164. Springer, Cham.
  8. Grimaz S., Ruzzene E., Zorzini F. Situational assessment of hospital facilities for modernization purposes and resilience improvement. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 66 (2021), 102594.
  9. Antipova T. Insights from Some Governments’ Budget Functional Expenditures for the Fifteen Years: 2005–2019. In: T. Antipova (Ed.): ICCS 2021, LNNS 315, 1–11, 2022.
  10. Antipova, T., Bourmistrov A. (2013) “Is Russian Public Sector Accounting in the Process of Modernization? An Analysis of Accounting Reforms in Russia”. Financial Accountability & Management, 29(4), November 2013, pp. 442 – 478.
  11. Skarvelis-Kazakos, S. et al. Resilience of electric utilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in the framework of the CIGRE definition of Power System Resilience. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, Vol. 136 (2022) 107703, 1-17.
  12. C. Lankford Walker (1993) A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Hospital Profitability, Journal of Hospital Marketing, 7:2, 121-138, DOI: 10.1300/J043v07n02_11
  13. Whinney Ernest S. Health Care Notes (1985) Considerations in Hospital Acquisitions, Hospital Topics, 63:1, 33, DOI: 10.1080/00185868.1985.9948394
  14. Davis, Peter et al. Efficiency, effectiveness, equity (E3). Evaluating hospital performance in three dimensions. Health Policy, Vol. 112.
  15. Health System Efficiency – WHO European Region.

Published online 12.06.2022