Daniel Laor

Assessing levels of hospital emergency preparedness

INTRODUCTION Emergency preparedness can be defined by the preparedness pyramid, which identifies planning, infrastructure, knowledge and capabilities, and training as the major components of maintaining a high level of preparedness. The aim of this article is to review the characteristics of contingency plans for mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) and models for assessing the emergency preparedness of hospitals. CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTINGENCY PLANS Emergency preparedness should focus on community preparedness, a personnel augmentation plan, and communications and public policies for funding the emergency preparedness. The capability to cope with a MCI serves as a basis for preparedness for non-conventional events. Coping with chemical casualties necessitates decontamination of casualties, treating victims with acute stress reactions, expanding surge capacities of hospitals, and integrating knowledge through drills. Risk communication also is important. ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS An annual assessment of the emergency plan is required in order to assure emergency preparedness. Preparedness assessments should include: (1) elements of disaster planning; (2) emergency coordination; (3) communication; (4) training; (5) expansion of hospital surge capacity; (6) personnel; (7) availability of equipment; (8) stockpiles of medical supplies; and (9) expansion of laboratory capacities. The assessment program must be based on valid criteria that are measurable, reliable, and enable conclusions to be drawn. There are several assessment tools that can be used, including surveys, parameters, capabilities evaluation, and self-assessment tools. SUMMARY Healthcare systems are required to prepare an effective response model to cope with MCIs. Planning should be envisioned as a process rather than a production of a tangible product. Assuring emergency preparedness requires a structured methodology that will enable an objective assessment of the level of readiness.

Israeli hospital preparedness for terrorism-related multiple casualty incidents: Can the surge capacity and injury severity distribution be better predicted?

BACKGROUND The incidence of large-scale urban attacks on civilian populations has significantly increased across the globe over the past decade. These incidents often result in Hospital Multiple Casualty Incidents (HMCI), which are very challenging to hospital teams. 15 years ago the Emergency and Disaster Medicine Division in the Israeli Ministry of Health defined a key of 20 percent of each hospitals bed capacity as its readiness for multiple casualties. Half of those casualties are expected to require immediate medical treatment. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of the current readiness guidelines based on the epidemiology of encountered HMCIs. METHODS A retrospective study of HMCIs was recorded in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) home front command and the Israeli National Trauma Registry (ITR) between November 2000 and June 2003. An HMCI is defined by the Emergency and Disaster Medicine Division in the Israeli Ministry of Health as >or=10 casualties or >or=4 suffering from injuries with an ISS>or=16 arriving to a single hospital. RESULTS The study includes a total of 32 attacks, resulting in 62 HMCIs and 1292 casualties. The mean number of arriving casualties to a single hospital was 20.8+/-13.3 (range 4-56, median 16.5). In 95% of the HMCIs the casualty load was <or=52. Based on severity scores and ED discharges 1022 (79.2%) casualties did not necessitate immediate medical treatment. CONCLUSION Hospital preparedness can be better defined by a fixed number of casualties rather than a percentile of its bed capacity. Only 20% of the arriving casualties will require immediate medical treatment. Implementation of this concept may improve the utilisation of national emergency health resources both in the preparation phase and on real time.

Continued vigilance – development of an online evaluation tool for assessing preparedness of medical facilities for biological events

Objective: Effective response to biological events necessitates ongoing evaluation of preparedness. This study was a bilateral German–Israeli collaboration aimed at developing an evaluation tool for assessing preparedness of medical facilities for biological events. Methods: Measurable parameters were identified through a literature review for inclusion in the evaluation tool and disseminated to 228 content experts in two modified Delphi cycles. Focus groups were conducted to identify psychosocial needs of the medical teams. Table-top and functional exercises were implemented to review applicability of the tool. Results: One hundred seventeen experts from Germany and Israel participated in the modified Delphi. Out of 188 parameters that were identified, 183 achieved a consensus of >75% of the content experts. Following comments recommended in the Delphi cycles, and feedback from focus groups and hospital exercises, the final tool consisted of 172 parameters. Median level of importance of each parameter was calculated based on ranking recommended in the Delphi process. Computerized web-based software was developed to calculate scores of preparedness for biological events. Conclusion: Ongoing evaluation means, such as the tool developed in the study, can facilitate the need for a valid and reliable mechanism that may be widely adopted and implemented as quality assurance measures. The tool is based on measurable parameters and indicators that can effectively present strengths and weaknesses in managing a response to a public health threat, and accordingly, steps can be implemented to improve readiness. Adoption of such a tool is an important component of assuring public health and effective emergency management.

Editorial comments--Staff procedure skills in management groups during exercises in disaster medicine.

1. Emergency and Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Health, Israel 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel 3. Department of Health Systems Management, Head of Leon and Mathilda Recanati School for Community Health Professions, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, BeerSheva, Israel 4. Center for Medical Education, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel 5. Israel Defense Forces Home Front Command