Disaster preparedness should represent an augmentation of the everyday trauma system, but are we prepared?

Exercising for mass casualty preparedness

Exercising for mass casualty incidents is mandated by governing organisations with the aim of maintaining readiness within the healthcare sector for the many challenges these incidents bring. This readiness is delivered through a combination of discussion-based and operation-based exercises that are targeted to the needs of both the individuals delivering care and the needs of the overall system of patient flow and treatment. Although exercising for disaster preparedness is resource intensive, it is the repetitive, iterative nature that allows for wide staff capture and exposure along with continual improvement of plans. Having been recently involved in exercising is also likely to increase the confidence of staff and makes them feel better prepared. Exercising should be tailored to the needs and likely challenges of each healthcare system. A cycle of design, challenge, and redesign should target areas of greatest need and greatest benefit. The conventional advice, when introducing exercising, is to start small and build up over time with repeated exercises that demonstrate increasing response capability. However, some organisations would benefit from an exercise that lays bare shortcomings and acts to galvanise change.

Learning from terrorist mass casualty incidents: a global survey

BACKGROUND

Reports published directly after terrorist mass casualty incidents frequently fail to capture difficulties that may have been encountered. An anonymised consensus-based platform may enable discussion and collaboration on the challenges faced. Our aim was to identify where to focus improvement for future responses.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods study by email of clinicians' experiences of leading during terrorist mass casualty incidents. An initial survey identified features that worked well, or failed to, during terrorist mass casualty incidents plus ongoing challenges and changes that were implemented as a result. A follow-up, quantitative survey measured agreement between responses within each of the themes using a Likert scale.

RESULTS

Thirty-three participants responded from 22 hospitals that had received casualties from a terrorist incident, representing 17 cities in low-middle, middle and high income countries. The first survey identified themes of sufficient (sometimes abundant) human resource, although coordination of staff was a challenge. Difficulties highlighted were communication, security, and management of blast injuries. The most frequently implemented changes were education on specific injuries, revising future plans and preparatory exercises. Persisting challenges were lack of time allocated to training and psychological well-being. The follow-up survey recorded highest agreement amongst correspondents on the need for re-triage at hospital (90% agreement), coordination roles (85% agreement), flexibility (100% agreement), and large-scale exercises (95% agreement).

CONCLUSION

This survey collates international experience gained from clinicians managing terrorist mass casualty incidents. The organisation of human response, rather than consumption of physical supplies, emerged as the main finding. NHSH Clinical Effectiveness Unit project registration number: 2020/21-036.

Refining mass casualty plans with simulation-based iterative learning

BACKGROUND

Preparatory, written plans for mass casualty incidents are designed to help hospitals deliver an effective response. However, addressing the frequently observed mismatch between planning and delivery of effective responses to mass casualty incidents is a key challenge. We aimed to use simulation-based iterative learning to bridge this gap.

METHODS

We used Normalisation Process Theory as the framework for iterative learning from mass casualty incident simulations. Five small-scale 'focused response' simulations generated learning points that were fed into two large-scale whole-hospital response simulations. Debrief notes were used to improve the written plans iteratively. Anonymised individual online staff surveys tracked learning. The primary outcome was system safety and latent errors identified from group debriefs. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of completed surveys, confirmation of reporting location, and respective roles for mass casualty incidents.

RESULTS

Seven simulation exercises involving more than 700 staff and multidisciplinary responses were completed with debriefs. Usual emergency care was not affected by simulations. Each simulation identified latent errors and system safety issues, including overly complex processes, utilisation of space, and the need for clarifying roles. After the second whole hospital simulation, participants were more likely to return completed surveys (odds ratio=2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-4.3). Repeated exercises resulted in respondents being more likely to know where to report (odds ratio=4.3; 95% CI, 2.5-7.3) and their respective roles (odds ratio=3.7; 95% CI, 2.2-6.1) after a simulated mass casualty incident was declared.

CONCLUSION

Simulation exercises are a useful tool to improve mass casualty incident plans iteratively and continuously through hospital-wide engagement of staff.