A Tactical Medicine After-action Report of the San Bernardino Terrorist Incident

Lessons learned from terror attacks: thematic priorities and development since 2001-results from a systematic review

Purpose

The threat of national and international terrorism remains high. Preparation is the key requirement for the resilience of hospitals and out-of-hospital rescue forces. The scientific evidence for defining medical and tactical strategies often feeds on the analysis of real incidents and the lessons learned derived from them. This systematic review of the literature aims to identify and systematically report lessons learned from terrorist attacks since 2001.

Methods

PubMed was used as a database using predefined search strategies and eligibility criteria. All countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) were included. The time frame was set between 2001 and 2018.

Results

Finally 68 articles were included in the review. From these, 616 lessons learned were extracted and summarized into 15 categories. The data shows that despite the difference in attacks, countries, and casualties involved, many of the lessons learned are similar. We also found that the pattern of lessons learned is repeated continuously over the time period studied.

Conclusions

The lessons from terrorist attacks since 2001 follow a certain pattern and remained constant over time. Therefore, it seems to be more accurate to talk about lessons identified rather than lessons learned. To save as many victims as possible, protect rescue forces from harm, and to prepare hospitals at the best possible level it is important to implement the lessons identified in training and preparation.

Provision of pre-hospital medical care for terrorist attacks

The delivery of medical care to the severely injured during major incidents and mass casualty events has been a recurring challenge for decades across the world. From events in resource-poor developing countries, through richly funded military conflicts, to the most equipped of developed nations, the provision of rapid medical care to the severely injured during major incidents and mass casualty events has been a priority for healthcare providers. This is often under the most difficult of circumstances.^1,2 Whilst mass casualty events are a persistent global challenge, it is clear in developed countries that patients and their families demand and expect a high standard of care from their rescuers, that this care should be delivered rapidly, and this should be of the highest quality possible.³ Whilst there is respect afforded to those who 'run towards danger' during a high-threat situation, first responders are subjected to a high degree of scrutiny for their actions, even when the circumstances they are presented with are considered to be extraordinary.⁴ Likewise, even for those who are catastrophically injured beyond salvage, society expects the response to be dignified, calculated, and thorough.³.

Triage in Complex, Coordinated Terrorist Attacks

INTRODUCTION

Terror attacks have increased in frequency, and tactics utilized have evolved. This creates significant challenges for first responders providing life-saving medical care in their immediate aftermath. The use of coordinated and multi-site attack modalities exacerbates these challenges. The use of triage is not well-validated in mass-casualty settings, and in the setting of intentional mass violence, new and innovative approaches are needed.

METHODS

Literature sourced from gray and peer-reviewed sources was used to perform a comparative analysis on the application of triage during the 2011 Oslo/Utoya Island (Norway), 2015 Paris (France), and 2015 San Bernardino (California USA) terrorist attacks. A thematic narrative identifies strengths and weaknesses of current triage systems in the setting of complex, coordinated terrorist attacks (CCTAs).

DISCUSSION

Triage systems were either not utilized, not available, or adapted and improvised to the tactical setting. The complexity of working with large numbers of patients, sensory deprived environments, high physiological stress, and dynamic threat profiles created significant barriers to the implementation of triage systems designed around flow charts, physiological variables, and the use of tags. Issues were identified around patient movement and "tactical triage."

CONCLUSION

Current triage tools are inadequate for use in insecure environments, such as the response to CCTAs. Further research and validation are required for novel approaches that simplify tactical triage and support its effective application. Simple solutions exist in tactical triage, patient movement, and tag use, and should be considered as part of an overall triage system.