Dataset Information

A Qualitative Study on Researchers' Experiences after Publishing Scientific Reports on Major Incidents, Mass-Casualty Incidents, and Disasters.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction and objective

Scientific 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

The 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 relevance

There 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.

SUBMITTER: Svensoy JN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8459171 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Oncology-associated adverse drug/device reactions can be fatal. Some clinicians who treat single patients with severe oncology-associated toxicities have researched case series and published this information. We investigated motivations and experiences of select individuals leading such efforts. Clinicians treating individual patients who developed oncology-associated serious adverse drug events were asked to participate. Inclusion criteria included having index patient information, reporting case series, and being collaborative with investigators from two National Institutes of Health funded pharmacovigilance networks. Thirty-minute interviews addressed investigational motivation, feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers, FDA personnel, and academic leadership, and recommendations for improving pharmacovigilance. Responses were analyzed using constant comparative methods of qualitative analysis. Overall, 18 clinicians met inclusion criteria and 14 interviewees are included. Primary motivations were scientific curiosity, expressed by six clinicians. A less common theme was public health related (three clinicians). Six clinicians received feedback characterized as supportive from academic leaders, while four clinicians received feedback characterized as negative. Three clinicians reported that following the case series publication they were invited to speak at academic institutions worldwide. Responses from pharmaceutical manufacturers were characterized as negative by 12 clinicians. One clinician's wife called the post-reporting time the "Maalox month," while another clinician reported that the manufacturer collaboratively offered to identify additional cases of the toxicity. Responses from FDA employees were characterized as collaborative for two clinicians, neutral for five clinicians, unresponsive for negative by six clinicians. Three clinicians endorsed developing improved reporting mechanisms for individual physicians, while 11 clinicians endorsed safety activities that should be undertaken by persons other than a motivated clinician who personally treats a patient with a severe adverse drug/device reaction. Our study provides some of the first reports of clinician motivations and experiences with reporting serious or potentially fatal oncology-associated adverse drug or device reactions. Overall, it appears that negative feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers and mixed feedback from the academic community and/or the FDA were reported. Big data, registries, Data Safety Monitoring Boards, and pharmacogenetic studies may facilitate improved pharmacovigilance efforts for oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. These initiatives overcome concerns related to complacency, indifference, ignorance, and system-level problems as barriers to documenting and reporting adverse drug events- barriers that have been previously reported for clinician reporting of serious adverse drug reactions.

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:BACKGROUND:Healthcare professionals who experience trauma due to patient safety incidents can be considered second victims, and they also suffer from various difficulties. In order to support second victims, it is necessary to determine the circumstances of the incidents in question, along with the symptoms that the victims are experiencing and the support they require. A qualitative study on healthcare professionals of various occupations, such as physicians and nurses working in Korea, was conducted, and the experiences and response methods and processes of second victims were examined. METHODS:In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 healthcare professionals (six physicians, eight nurses, and two pharmacists) who had experienced a patient safety incident. All interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the data analysis was conducted in accordance with Strauss and Corbin's grounded theory. Both open coding and axial coding were performed. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) were applied in this study. RESULTS:The results of the open coding demonstrated that the experiences of second victims can be categorized into "the reactions of the first victim and surrounding people after the incident," "Influence of factors aside from the incident," "the initial complex responses of the participants to the incident," "open discussion of the incident," "the culture in medical institutions regarding early-stage incident response," "the coping responses of the participants after incidents," and "living with the incident." Then, the seven categories in the open coding stage were rearranged according to the paradigm model, and the reaction process of the second victims was analyzed through process analysis, being divided into the "entanglement stage," "agitating stage," "struggling stage," "managing stage," and "indurating stage." CONCLUSIONS:This research is significant because it provides a comprehensive understanding of second victims' experiences in the eastern region of Korea, by obtaining data using a qualitative research method. The findings of the study also highlight the five stages of the second victim response process, and can be used to design a specialized second victim support program in Korea.