An epidemiological approach to mass casualty incidents in the Principality of Asturias (Spain)

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Pedro Arcos González¹  Tatiana Cuartas Álvarez²  Cecilia Naves Gómez²  Rafael Castro Delgado² 

[1] Unit for Research in Emergency and Disaster, Department of Medicine, University of Oviedo, Campus de El Cristo, Oviedo 33006, Spain;SAMU-Asturias, Oviedo, Spain

关键词: Disaster epidemiology;    Emergency medical services;    Mass casualty incidents;   

Others  :  1235877
DOI  :  10.1186/s13049-016-0211-x

 received in 2015-10-14, accepted in 2016-02-13,  发布年份 2016

【 摘 要 】

Background

Mass Casualty Incidents (MCI) have been rarely studied from epidemiological approaches. The objective of this study is to establish the epidemiological profile of MCI in the autonomous region of the Principality of Asturias (Spain) and analyse ambulance deployment and severity of patients.

Methods

This is a population-based prospective study run in 2014. Inclusion criteria for MCI is “every incident with four or more people affected that requires ambulance mobilisation”.

Results

Thirty-nine MCI have been identified in Asturias in 2014. Thirty-one (79 %) were road traffic accidents, three (7.5 %) fires and five (12.8 %) other types. Twenty-one incidents (56.7 %) had four patients, and only three of them (8 %) had seven or more patients. An average of 2.41 ambulances per incident were deployed (standard error = 0.18). Most of the patients per incident were minor injured patients (mean = 4; standard error = 0.2), and 0,26 were severe patients (standard error = 0.08). There was a positive significant correlation (p < 0.01) between the total number of patients and the total number of ambulances deployed and between the total number of patients and Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulances deployed (p < 0.001). The total number of non-ALS ambulances was not related with the total number of patients.

Discussion

Population based research in MCI is essential to define MCI profile. Quantitative definition of MCI, adapted to resources, avoid selection bias and present a more accurate profile of MCI. As espected, road traffic accidents are the most frequent MCI in our region. This aspect is essential to plan training and response to MCI. Analysis of total response to MCI shows that for almost an hour, we should plan extra resources for daily emergencies. This data is an important issue to bear in mind when planning MCI response. The fact that most patients are classified as minor injured and more advanced life support units than needed are deployed shows that analysis of resources deployment and patient severity helps us to better plan future MCI response.

Conclusions

Road traffic accidents with minor injured patients are the most frequent MCI in our region. More advanced life support units than needed have been initially deployed, which might compromise response to daily emergencies during an MCI.

【 授权许可】

   
2016 Castro Delgado et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Health Organization. Mass casualty management systems: strategies and guidelines for building health sector capacity. Geneva, 2007.
• [2]L Blom, JJM Black. Major incidents. BMJ 2014; 348:doi:10.1136/bmj.g1144.
• [3]Castro Delgado et al. The registry of multiple casualty incident of north Spain. North Spanish Disaster working group. (In Spanish). XXVI National Congress of Emergency Medicine. Abstract book, page 24. Málaga, 2014
• [4]Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC
• [5]British Standards Institution (BSI). Medical vehicles and their equipment. Road ambulances. BS EN 1789:2007, 2007
• [6]Castro Delgado R, Arcos González P, Cuartas Álvarez T, Peláez Corres N, Rodríguez Soler A, Garijo Gonzalo G, Turégano Fuentes F, Martínez MC. Development of a New prehospital advanced triage model (META) for multiple casualties incidents. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013; 28 Suppl. 1:s8-9.
• [7]Hardy S. Major incidents in England. Why aren’t we learning from them? BMJ. 2015; 350:h1712.
• [8]Lennquist S. Protocol for reports from major accidents and disasters in the international journal of disaster medicine. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2008; 34:486-92.
• [9]Rådestad M et al.. Essential key indicators for disaster medical response suggested to be included in a national uniform protocol for documentation of major incidents: a Delphi study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013; 21:68. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Fattah S, Rehn M, Reierth E et al.. Systematic literature review of templates for reporting prehospital major incident medical management. BMJ Open. 2013; 3: Article ID e002658
• [11]Cuartas Álvarez T, Castro Delgado R, Arcos González P. From theory to practice in the applicability of prehospital multiple-casualty incident triage systems: a systematic review (in Spanish). Emergencias. 2014; 26:147-54.
• [12]Fattah S, Rehn M, Lockey D, Thompson J, Lossius HM, Wisborg T et al.. A consensus based template for reporting of pre-hospital major incident medical management. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2014; 22:5. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Fattah S et al.. Implementing a template for major incident reporting: experiences from the first year. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015; 23:55. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Jin Fim S et al.. Incidence and mortality rates of disasters and mass casualty incidents in Korea: a population-based cross-sectional study, 2000–2009. J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28:658-66.
• [15]Kim CH et al.. Scientific framework for research on disaster and mass casualty incident in Korea: building consensus using Delphi method. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29:122-8.
• [16]Smith E, Wasiak J, Sen A, Archer F, Burkle FM. Three decades of disasters: a review of disaster-specific literature from 1977–2009. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009; 24:306-11.
• [17]Schenk E, Wijetunge G, Mann NC, Lerner EB, Longthorne A, Dawson D. Epidemiology of mass casualty incidents in the United States. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014; 18(3):408-16.
• [18]Branas CC, Sing RF, Perron AD. A case series analysis of mass casualty incidents. Prehosp Emerg care. 2000; 4(4):299-304.
• [19]Kuisma M et al.. Analysis of multiple casualty incidents- prospective cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2005; 49(10):1527-33.
• [20]El Sayed M et al.. Description of procedures performed on patients by emergency medical services during mass casualty incidents in the United States. Am J Emerg Med. 2015; 33:1030-6.
• [21]Baker D. Civilian exposure to toxic agents: emergency medical response. Prehosp Disast Med. 2004; 19(2):174-8.
• [22]Interim Planning Guidance for Preparedness and Response to a Mass Casualty Event Resulting from Terrorist use of Explosives. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; 2010.
• [23]Castro Delgado R. Chemical risk in health area III of Asturias and health response. Doctoral dissertation. Oviedo University, 2001 [available in. http://hdl. handle.net/10651/4010
• [24]Toro-Díaz H, Mayorga ME, Chanta S, McLay LA. Joint location and dispatching decisions for emergency medical services. Comput Ind Eng. 2013; 64:917-28.
• [25]Fuentes T et al.. Injury patterns from major urban terrorist bombings in trains: the Madrid experience. World J Surg. 2008; 32:1168-75.
• [26]Redwood-Campbell L, Abrahams J. Primary health care and disasters. The current state of the literature: what We know, gaps and next steps. Prehosp Disast Med. 2011; 26(3):184-91.
• [27]Stohler SA, Jacobs LM, Gabram SG. Roles of a helicopter emergency medical service in mass casualty incidents. J Air Med Transp. 1991; 10(1):7-13.
• [28]Sibel Salman F, Sezer G. Deployment of field hospitals in mass casualty incidents. Comput Ind Eng. 2014; 74:37-51.