Dataset Information

Evaluation of admissions to the Major Incident Hospital based on a standardized protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Major Incident Hospital (MIH) is a unique facility strictly reserved to provide immediate large-scale emergency care for victims of disasters and major incidents. We evaluated the implemented organization to identify strengths and weaknesses, and provide knowledge essential for further improvement of preparedness.

Method

According to the Protocol for Reports from Major accidents and Disasters (PRMD) and along with our five scenarios for activation, we analyzed all the data from evaluation reports of all our deployments since the MIH was founded in 1991.

Results

The MIH was able to provide group-wise emergency care to military (29 admissions) as well as civilian victims of major incidents and disasters, both national (260) and international (226). Group-wise treatment was advantageous for quarantine, logistics, registration, emotional support and (pre)arrangements for family, media and security. Strong points are preparedness and availability of a dedicated facility, including ICU, X-ray and OR facilities, irrespective of MRSA status and prearranged cooperation, e.g., with a trauma centre, poison centre and the military. Evaluation, research and training resulted in a barcode registration system and continuous adaptations to improve preparedness. Shortage of resources did not occur; use of the MIH's available resources for national incidents though, could be further optimized.

Conclusions

Recommendations for the future are: improvement of imbedding in regional and national procedures, continued dedicated time and staff for training, research and development, improvement of nuclear/biological/chemical decontamination facilities and preparedness, implementation of standardized scoring systems and expansion of registration systems to the prehospital setting.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00068-010-0067-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SUBMITTER: Marres GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3150834 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ProblemNHS patients requiring elective surgery usually have to wait before being treated and are usually told when a date becomes available.Design18 month pilot programme to enable day case patients to book date of hospital admission at time of decision to operate.Background and setting24 pilot sites in England with relatively short waiting times and some experience of booking appointments.Key measures for improvementProportion of patients with booked or "to come in" date during and after pilot programme, proportion not attending for admission, and proportion waiting > or = 6 months. Comparison of pilot sites with non-pilot sites.Strategies for changeNational Patients' Access Team established to help pilot sites enable patients to book admission dates. Provision of 9.9m pounds sterling to pilot sites to employ project managers, purchase equipment, buy extra time from clinical and other staff, and invest in information and communications technology.Effects of changeProportion of patients with booked or "to come in" date increased from 51.1% to 72.7% between end of March 1999 and end of March 2000, and then fell to 66.2% by end of March 2001. Over the same periods, the proportion of patients waiting > or = 6 months fell from 10.9% to 10.5% and then increased to 11.9%. The proportion of patients failing to attend fell from 5.7% to 3.1% between the first quarter of 1999 and the first quarter of 2000, and then increased to 4.0% in the first quarter of 2001. Pilot sites varied widely in performance during and after the pilot phase. Pilot sites had higher proportions of patients with booked or "to come in" date than non-pilot sites at end of each period.Lessons learntIncreasing the proportion of patients who book their date of hospital admission is possible, but there are difficulties in sustaining this. Several factors facilitated or hindered the implementation of booking, and the roll out of the programme across the NHS is seeking to incorporate these factors.

Project description:IntroductionInternationally there is pressure to contain costs due to rising numbers of hospital admissions. Alongside age, socioeconomic disadvantage is the strongest risk factor for avoidable hospital admission. This equity-focussed systematic review is required for policymakers to understand what has been shown to work to reduce inequalities in hospital admissions, what does not work and where the current gaps in the evidence-base are.Methods and analysisAn initial framework shows how interventions are hypothesised to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in avoidable hospital admissions. Studies will be included if the intervention focusses exclusively on socioeconomically disadvantaged populations or if the study reports differential effects by socioeconomic status (education, income, occupation, social class, deprivation, poverty or an area-based proxy for deprivation derived from place of residence) with respect to hospital admission or readmission (overall or condition-specific for those classified as ambulatory care sensitive). Studies involving individuals of any age, undertaken in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, published from 2000 to 29th February 2020 in any language will be included. Electronic searches will include MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL and the Web of Knowledge platform. Electronic searches will be supplemented with full citation searches of included studies, website searches and retrieval of relevant unpublished information. Study inclusion, data extraction and quality appraisal will be conducted by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis will be conducted and also meta-analysis where possible. The main analysis will examine the effectiveness of interventions at reducing socioeconomic inequalities in hospital admissions. Interventions will be characterised by their domain of action and approach to addressing inequalities. For included studies, contextual information on where, for whom and how these interventions are organised, implemented and delivered will be examined where possible.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was not required for this protocol. The research will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication, conferences and an open-access policy-orientated paper.Prospero registration numberCRD42019153666.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Novel and efficient healthcare approaches are needed to better serve increasingly older chronic disease patients. Many effective integrated chronic disease management strategies have emerged from the primary care sector. However, in many Asian and developing countries, primary care is underdeveloped, and patients prefer secondary-based services. The Integrated Generalist-led Hospital (IGH) care model is a new approach, which may be better suited for chronic disease patients in the local context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A hybrid type I study on the effectiveness and implementation of the IGH care model will be conducted. Implementation evaluation will be informed by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with staff, a staff survey, patient interviews, clinical outcomes and cost data. Clinical outcomes include the length of stay, readmission, emergency room visit rate and mortality. Clinical outcomes will be summarised and compared with a propensity-matched 'usual care' group (derived from the general medicine ward(s) at a separate hospital). The Kaplan-Meier approach will be used to estimate time until death and time until first readmission (both within 30?days of discharge) and time until discharge. Multivariate regression models will be used to investigate the association between the care model and occurrence of readmission, emergency room visit and death, all within 30?days of discharge. Qualitative data will be analysed using a thematic analysis method. Qualitative and quantitative data will also be coded according to the five domains of the CFIR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This protocol was reviewed and approved by the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board (NHG DSRB 2019/00308). Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations. Findings will also be discussed with key stakeholders through local dissemination events.