**6. Methodology**

In this chapter, four scientific methods were used. Firstly, it was the analysis, which we used for the analysis of the hospitals. Secondly, the method comparison was used, which compares the results from the analysis. Thirdly, the induction method was used, where this method serves to examine the fact of creating a hypothesis from the points obtained. Finally, the heuristic analysis of the preparedness was used.

The heuristic analysis of the preparedness was developed for the evaluation of the hospitals. Based on this assessment, we will get an accurate idea of the weaknesses and strengths of the assessed hospitals.

This analysis was divided into four categories. The hospitals were assessed from the point of view—emergency water supply, emergency food supply, emergency energy supply, and other emergency supply.

Emergency power supply—this category evaluates the preparedness of the hospitals for emergency energy supplies—the ownership of energy supply replacement units. However, these aggregates are fuel-dependent, and it is, therefore, necessary to assess fuel supply to the hospital. It deals with the area of contractual fuelling, its gas station, etc.

Based on the above analysis, an assessment was performed using Eq. (1):

$$HP = \frac{(R \star H)}{2 \star H} \times 100\% \tag{1}$$

**85**

stations.

**Figure 3.**

**8. Discussion**

during the crisis.

*Hospital Energy Resilience*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86137*

the primary aim of our research and this chapter.

*Emergency energy supply of the hospitals [author].*

It was in the readiness of the hospitals to make sure that we saw the supply of electricity and that we saw significant differences. And this fact enabled us to define

Each hospital has to deal with the external issue of emergency fuel stocks to address individually. There is currently no valid legislation to ensure this. Some hospitals address this situation through a contractual agreement with fuel suppliers (ČEPRO or other contractors); other hospitals own a gas station where they have sufficient supplies even for a more extended period of the power supply. On the contrary, there are also hospitals that do not solve this problem at all and do not have a contractual agreement with any supplier of fuel. If necessary, they use their ambulances to deliver fuels in barrels from gas stations. Here, however, it is essential to take into account the fact that there may be a power failure in the whole region and there will be no possibility to use all the gas

In general, healthcare and the provision of health care in hospitals play an essential role for each country. The whole world is threatened by a series of events that may be of naturogenic or anthropogenic character. These events may result in a power outage. The power outage just mentioned has a significant impact on the hospitals. It is therefore crucial that hospitals maintain normal operations even

This chapter deals with hospital energy resilience. The relationship between critical infrastructure-health and power outage is mentioned. This point is discussed regarding nomenclature as well as its history and impact on hospitals. In the

Subsequently, a heuristic analysis of the hospital preparedness was carried out. This analysis was used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses and the subsequent comparison of the evaluated hospitals. A total of 13 hospitals were assessed in the Czech Republic. Based on this analysis, we have concluded this issue. This analysis evaluated the different preparedness of hospitals in the field of emergency energy supply. Each hospital is building a different path to this issue. Therefore, it cannot

past, significant power outage impacts on hospitals could be observed.

be said that hospitals will be fully operational in the event of a crisis.

where HP is hospital preparedness, R is sum of results (obtained points), and H is the number of assessed heuristics.

The evaluation methodology consisted in assigning a response to each question answered in the form of valuation from a predefined set of values (−1 = does not agree, 1 = agree; 0 = partly agree, and blank field if the problem is not relevant).
