You're It-You've Got to Save Someone: Immediate Responders, Not Bystanders

Do first responders and populations perceive risks similarly? A comparative study of seven countries

Introduction

Risk perception illustrates the subjective evaluation of individuals concerning the characteristics, severity, and capacity to cope with potential hazards. Risk perception influences attitudes and actions individuals take to protect themselves from future threats. Risk perceptions might change among different stakeholder groups such as society and first responders. Identifying risk perceptions of stakeholders is essential to establish effective protective measures.

Method

This study investigated the commonalities and diversities in risk perception among first responders and the public, within and between seven European and beyond countries. A self-administered questionnaire was used to gather data from both first responders and civilians. They were asked to assess their risk perception level for five categories of risks (Extreme weather-related events, nature-related events, social disruptions, critical services dependencies, and pandemics).

Results

Using Univariate Analysis of Variance showed disparity concerning both the levels of risk perception between the public and first responders, as well as their relative ranking. For example, concerning extreme weather-related and nature-related events, risk perception levels of the first responders is higher than that of the population in six out of the seven studied countries. In contrast, the population's risk perception is higher compared to the first responders in six out of the seven countries, concerning critical infrastructure dependencies and pandemics.

Discussion

The relative gaps between the first responders versus the population, within each country, vary considerably. Norway for example presents significant differences between the two internal populations concerning all risks (except for extreme weather), while in Sweden, no significant gaps were identified, concerning all five risks.

Rethinking the Current "Stage-and-Wait" Paradigm

INTRODUCTION

The experience of terrorist incidents involving a secondary explosive device that targeted rescue forces led to changes in the safety protocols of these forces in most countries of the world. These protocols are the foundation of the current "Stage-and-Wait" paradigm that prohibits the entry of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) from entering the scene and treating casualties until it is deemed safe. These guidelines were established absent of an evidence-base detailing the risk to responders and the potential consequences to the injured on-scene. The lack of clarity is compounded by the fact that different situations, as well as operational considerations, such as the length of time until bomb squad arrival at the scene versus time of massive bleeding injuries, for example, impact outcomes must be taken into account.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to shed light on this matter while employing an evidence-based approach exploring the investigations of the frequency of secondary explosion threats in terrorist attacks over the last 20 years and discussing some of the ethical challenges and ramifications ensuing. While this study does not propose an outright change to current guidelines, in light of the evidence gathered, an open review and discussion based on the findings may be beneficial.

METHODS

The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) was used as the data source of bombing incidents world-wide.

RESULTS

The results revealed that approximately 70 per-1,000 bombing incidents involved secondary explosions across regions and countries within the study period.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the need to rethink the current "Stage-and-Wait" paradigm by recommending brainstorming conferences comprised of multi-sectoral experts aimed at deliberating the matter. World-wide experts in emergency medicine, bioethics, and disaster management should cautiously consider all aspects of bomb-related incidents. These brainstorming deliberations should consider the calculated risk of secondary explosions that account for approximately 70 per-1,000 bombing incidents. This study highlights the need to re-examine the current versus new paradigm to achieve a better balance between the need to ensure EMS safety while also providing the necessary and immediate care to improve casualty survival. This ethical dilemma of postponing urgent care needs to be confronted.

Why Does Israel Lead the World in COVID-19 Vaccinations? Applying Mass Casualty Event Principles to COVID-19 Vaccination Programs

The article examines Israel’s experience in managing the COVID-19 vaccination program beginning in December 2020. Utilizing principles of mass casualty event management, such as triaging, flow of casualty care, and flexibility (among others), we analyze Israel’s vaccination program. The successful Israeli experience was found to be based on timely coordinated and adaptive health system logistics and operations, as well as cooperative population behaviors.

Feelings, Thoughts, and Behaviors During Disaster

Thoughts, feelings, and behaviors during traumatic events, that is, peritraumatic reactions, are key to post-trauma psychopathology development. Qualitative research is required to investigate whether existing quantitative methods capture the range and complexity of peritraumatic reactions as described by survivors. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 104 earthquake survivors. Participants reported experiencing various peritraumatic reactions (M = 21, range = 6-43). The survivors' accounts confirmed presence and overall phenomenological characteristics of commonly studied peritraumatic reactions such as dissociation, distress, mental defeat, and immobility. In addition, novel and understudied reactions were identified: cognitive overload, hyperfocus, and emotion regulation, as well as positive affect. Finally, a number of cross-cutting phenomena were identified such as the social nature of many reactions and survivors evaluating their reactions as difficult to put into words. These findings have implications for the conceptualization of peritraumatic reactions, for trauma-focused psychotherapeutic interventions, and for the wellbeing of disaster survivors.