Dataset Information

Immediate response to major incidents: defining an immediate responder!

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

There is a gap in time between the occurrence of a mass casualty incident (MCI) and the arrival of the first responders to the scene, which offers an opportunity for the public (immediate responders) to perform life-saving measures. The purpose of this study was to identify these measures and the public's willingness to conduct them.

Method

An extensive literature review was performed to identify the possible measures that can be undertaken by the public. A group of experts were asked to prioritize and rank the feasibility of performing the measures by the public. Finally, the public was asked whether they were willing to do the chosen measures before and after an appropriate education.

Results

Twenty different measures were identified and presented in a questionnaire as statements, which were prioritized and ranked by the expert group into four categories: what (1) should be done, (2) is good to know how, (3) is not necessary to know, and (4) should not be done. All statements were converted into understandable statements and were sent to the public. There were some differences and some agreements between the experts and the public regarding what an immediate responder should do. However, the willingness of the public to perform most of the measures was high and increased after being offered an appropriate education.

Conclusion

The use of immediate responders is a life-saving approach in MCIs and in situations when every minute counts and every human resource is an invaluable asset. Multiple steps, such as education, empowerment, and access, should be taken into consideration to enable bystanders to effectively help struggling survivors.

SUBMITTER: Khorram-Manesh A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7691304 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Immediate response to major incidents: defining an immediate responder!

Khorram-Manesh Amir A Plegas Patricia P Högstedt Åsa Å Peyravi Mahmoudreza M Carlström Eric E

European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society 20190405 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>There is a gap in time between the occurrence of a mass casualty incident (MCI) and the arrival of the first responders to the scene, which offers an opportunity for the public (immediate responders) to perform life-saving measures. The purpose of this study was to identify these measures and the public's willingness to conduct them.<h4>Method</h4>An extensive literature review was performed to identify the possible measures that can be undertaken by the public. A group of expert ...[more]

PMID: 30953109

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:ContextEpidemiological preparedness is vital in providing relevant, transparent, and timely intelligence for the management, mitigation, and prevention of public health impacts following major environmental health incidents. A register is a set of records containing systematically collected, standardized data about individual people. Planning for a register of people affected by or exposed to an incident is one of the evolving tools in the public health preparedness and response arsenal.ObjectiveWe compared and contrasted the instigation and design of health registers in the epidemiological response to major environmental health incidents in England, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States.DesignConsultation with experts from the 5 nations, supplemented with a review of gray and peer-reviewed scientific literature to identify examples where registers have been used.SettingPopulations affected by or at risk from major environmental health incidents in England, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States.MethodsNations were compared with respect to the (1) types of major incidents in their remit for considering a register; (2) arrangements for triggering a register; (3) approaches to design of register; (4) arrangements for register implementation; (5) uses of registers; and (6) examples of follow-up studies.ResultsHealth registers have played a key role in the effective public health response to major environmental incidents, including sudden chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear, as well as natural, more prolonged incidents. Value has been demonstrated in the early and rapid deployment of health registers, enabling the capture of a representative population.ConclusionThe decision to establish a health register must ideally be confirmed immediately or soon after the incident using a set of agreed criteria. The establishment of protocols for the instigation, design, and implementation of health registers is recommended as part of preparedness activities. Key stakeholders must be aware of the importance of, and protocols for, establishing a register.Agencies will find value in preparing and implementing registers as part of an effective public health response to major environmental incidents, including sudden chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear incidents, as well as natural, more prolonged incidents.

Project description:IntroductionRetrospective trauma scores are often used to categorise trauma, however, they have little utility in the prehospital or hyper-acute setting and do not define major trauma to non-specialists. This study employed a Delphi process in order to gauge degrees of consensus/disagreement amongst expert panel members to define major trauma.MethodA two round modified Delphi technique was used to explore subject-expert consensus and identify variables to define major trauma through systematically collating questionnaire responses. After initial descriptive analysis of variables, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in response to the Delphi statements between professional groups. A hierarchical cluster analysis was undertaken to identify patterns of similarity/difference of response. A grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis of data allowed for potentially multiple iterations of the Delphi process to be influenced by identified themes.ResultsOf 55 expert panel members invited to participate, round 1 had 43 participants (Doctor n = 20, Paramedic n = 20, Nurse n = 5, other n = 2). No consistent patterns of opinion emerged with regards to professional group. Cluster analysis identified three patterns of similar responses and coded as trauma minimisers, the middle ground and the risk averse. Round 2 had 35 respondents with minimum change in opinion between rounds. Consensus of > 70% was achieved on many variables which included the identification of life/limb threatening injuries, deranged physiology, need for intensive care interventions and that extremes of age need special consideration. It was also acknowledged that retrospective injury severity scoring has a role to play but is not the only method of defining major trauma. Various factors had a majority of agreement/disagreement but did not meet the pre-set criteria of 70% agreement. These included the topics of burns, spinal immobilisation and whether a major trauma centre is the only place where major trauma can be managed.ConclusionBased upon the output of this Delphi study, major trauma may be defined as: "Significant injury or injuries that have potential to be life-threatening or life-changing sustained from either high energy mechanisms or low energy mechanisms in those rendered vulnerable by extremes of age".

Dataset Information

Immediate response to major incidents: defining an immediate responder!

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Immediate response to major incidents: defining an immediate responder!

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets