Dataset Information

Survey of major trauma centre preparedness for mass casualty incidents in Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand.

ABSTRACT: Background:Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are increasing. Trauma centres play a key role in MCIs due to their readiness and expansive multidisciplinary expertise for injury management. Previous studies have shown deficiencies in trauma centre disaster preparedness. The aim of this study was to describe the current disaster preparedness of Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) in Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand. Methods:A cross-sectional survey of all (n = 82) MTCs was undertaken. The anonymous survey collected data about disaster preparedness in nine key areas. Respondents were encouraged to consult appropriately at their centre to provide an accurate representation of their centre's preparedness. Findings:Responses were received from 69 (84%) centres; 61 completed all questions. 91% had a disaster preparedness committee and 80% had an all-hazards emergency plan. 79% had held an MCI drill in the past 2 years. 54% reported a system in place to calculate maximum capacity, but testing of surge capacity was uncommon. 55% reported the presence of stored resources for an MCI and 58% had a database of staff trained in Emergency Management. 74% had a training and education plan available for staff involved in an MCI and a plan for professional debriefing of staff post-MCI, while 62% had a post-disaster employee assistance programme. Most centres had appropriate back-up communication, safety and security plans. Interpretation:The disaster preparedness of MTCs was high for communication, safety and security but there was clear need for improvement in other areas including surge capacity, human resources and post-disaster recovery.

SUBMITTER: Gabbe BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7201027 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Survey of major trauma centre preparedness for mass casualty incidents in Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand.

Gabbe Belinda J BJ Veitch William W Curtis Kate K Martin Kate K Gomez David D Civil Ian I Moran Chris C Teague Warwick J WJ Holland Andrew J A AJA Lecky Fiona F Fitzgerald Mark M Nathens Avery A Joseph Anthony A

EClinicalMedicine 20200402

<h4>Background</h4>Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are increasing. Trauma centres play a key role in MCIs due to their readiness and expansive multidisciplinary expertise for injury management. Previous studies have shown deficiencies in trauma centre disaster preparedness. The aim of this study was to describe the current disaster preparedness of Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) in Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional survey of all (<i>n</i> = 82) MTCs was unde ...[more]

PMID: 32382716

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction and objectiveScientific reporting on major incidents, mass-casualty incidents (MCIs), and disasters is challenging and made difficult by the nature of the medical response. Many obstacles might explain why there are few and primarily non-heterogenous published articles available. This study examines the process of scientific reporting through first-hand experiences from authors of published reports. It aims to identify learning points and challenges that are important to address to mitigate and improve scientific reporting after major incidents.MethodsThis was a qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected based on a comprehensive literature search. Ten researchers, who had published reports on major incidents, MCIs, or disasters from 2013-2018 were included, of both genders, from eight countries on three continents. The researchers reported on large fires, terrorist attacks, shootings, complex road accidents, transportation accidents, and earthquakes.ResultsThe interview was themed around initiation, workload, data collection, guidelines/templates, and motivation factors for reporting. The most challenging aspects of the reporting process proved to be a lack of dedicated time, difficulties concerning data collection, and structuring the report. Most researchers had no prior experience in reporting on major incidents. Guidelines and templates were often chosen based on how easily accessible and user-friendly they were.Conclusion and relevanceThere are few articles presenting first-hand experience from the process of scientific reporting on major incidents, MCIs, and disasters. This study presents motivation factors, challenges during reporting, and factors that affected the researchers' choice of reporting tools such as guidelines and templates. This study shows that the structural tools available for gathering data and writing scientific reports need to be more widely promoted to improve systematic reporting in Emergency and Disaster Medicine. Through gathering, comparing, and analyzing data, knowledge can be acquired to strengthen and improve responses to future major incidents. This study indicates that transparency and willingness to share information are requisite for forming a successful scientific report.

Project description:It is recognized that the study of the disaster medical response (DMR) is a relatively new field. To date, there is no evidence-based literature that clearly defines the best medical response principles, concepts, structures and processes in a disaster setting. Much of what is known about the DMR results from descriptive studies and expert opinion. No experimental studies regarding the effects of DMR interventions on the health outcomes of disaster survivors have been carried out. Traditional analytic methods cannot fully capture the flow of disaster victims through a complex disaster medical response system (DMRS). Computer modelling and simulation enable to study and test operational assumptions in a virtual but controlled experimental environment. The SIMEDIS (Simulation for the assessment and optimization of medical disaster management) simulation model consists of 3 interacting components: the victim creation model, the victim monitoring model where the health state of each victim is monitored and adapted to the evolving clinical conditions of the victims, and the medical response model, where the victims interact with the environment and the resources at the disposal of the healthcare responders. Since the main aim of the DMR is to minimize as much as possible the mortality and morbidity of the survivors, we designed a victim-centred model in which the casualties pass through the different components and processes of a DMRS. The specificity of the SIMEDIS simulation model is the fact that the victim entities evolve in parallel through both the victim monitoring model and the medical response model. The interaction between both models is ensured through a time or medical intervention trigger. At each service point, a triage is performed together with a decision on the disposition of the victims regarding treatment and/or evacuation based on a priority code assigned to the victim and on the availability of resources at the service point. The aim of the case study is to implement the SIMEDIS model to the DMRS of an international airport and to test the medical response plan to an airplane crash simulation at the airport. In order to identify good response options, the model then was used to study the effect of a number of interventional factors on the performance of the DMRS. Our study reflects the potential of SIMEDIS to model complex systems, to test different aspects of DMR, and to be used as a tool in experimental research that might make a substantial contribution to provide the evidence base for the effectiveness and efficiency of disaster medical management.

Project description:BackgroundPatient engagement in safety has shown positive effects in preventing or reducing adverse events and potential safety risks. Capturing and utilising patient-reported safety incident data can be used for service learning and improvement.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to characterise the nature of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care.DesignSecondary analysis of two cross sectional studies.ParticipantsAdult patients from Australian and English primary care settings.MeasuresPatients' self-reported experiences of safety incidents were captured using the validated Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety questionnaire. Qualitative responses to survey items were analysed and categorised using the Primary Care Patient Safety Classification System. The frequency and type of safety incidents, contributory factors, and patient and system level outcomes are presented.ResultsA total of 1329 patients (n=490, England; n=839, Australia) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 5.3% (n=69) of patients reported a safety incident over the preceding 12 months. The most common incident types were administration incidents (n=27, 31%) (mainly delays in accessing a physician) and incidents involving diagnosis and assessment (n=16, 18.4%). Organisation of care accounted for 27.6% (n=29) of the contributory factors identified in the safety incidents. Staff factors (n=13, 12.4%) was the second most commonly reported contributory factor. Where an outcome could be determined, patient inconvenience (n=24, 28.6%) and clinical harm (n=21, 25%) (psychological distress and unpleasant experience) were the most frequent.ConclusionsThe nature and outcomes of patient-reported incidents differ markedly from those identified in studies of staff-reported incidents. The findings from this study emphasise the importance of capturing patient-reported safety incidents in the primary care setting. The patient perspective can complement existing sources of safety intelligence with the potential for service improvement.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Older age is associated with higher prevalence of chronic illness and functional impairment, contributing to an increased rate of hospitalization and admission to intensive care. The primary objective was to evaluate the rate, characteristics and outcomes of very old (age >or= 80 years) patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Australian New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database. Data were obtained for 120,123 adult admissions for >or= 24 hours across 57 ICUs from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005. RESULTS: A total of 15,640 very old patients (13.0%) were admitted during the study. These patients were more likely to be from a chronic care facility, had greater co-morbid illness, greater illness severity, and were less likely to receive mechanical ventilation. Crude ICU and hospital mortalities were higher (ICU: 12% vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001; hospital: 24.0% vs. 13%, P < 0.001). By multivariable analysis, age >/= 80 years was associated with higher ICU and hospital death compared with younger age strata (ICU: odds ratio (OR) = 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.4 to 3.0; hospital: OR = 5.4, 95% CI = 4.9 to 5.9). Factors associated with lower survival included admission from a chronic care facility, co-morbid illness, nonsurgical admission, greater illness severity, mechanical ventilation, and longer stay in the ICU. Those aged >or= 80 years were more likely to be discharged to rehabilitation/long-term care (12.3% vs. 4.9%, OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 2.6 to 2.9). The admission rates of very old patients increased by 5.6% per year. This potentially translates to a 72.4% increase in demand for ICU bed-days by 2015. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients aged >or= 80 years admitted to intensive care in Australia and New Zealand is rapidly increasing. Although these patients have more co-morbid illness, are less likely to be discharged home, and have a greater mortality than younger patients, approximately 80% survive to hospital discharge. These data also imply a potential major increase in demand for ICU bed-days for very old patients within a decade.

Dataset Information

Survey of major trauma centre preparedness for mass casualty incidents in Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand.

Publications

Survey of major trauma centre preparedness for mass casualty incidents in Australia, Canada, England and New Zealand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets