22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pdm.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Evidence suggests that regular disaster exercises have beneficial effects on subsequent mock and actual disaster responses. The purpose of this report is to describe a multiple hospital, bioterrorism exercise, evaluated by independent observers who used an evaluation template.
Methods:
The overall tabletop exercise design included participation from 23 Joint Commission Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations hospitals, four health departments, and a representative from one federal agency. The exercise was evaluated by trained exercise observers utilizing an independently prepared, evaluation protocol.
Results:
All exercise sites successfully identified the bio-agent involved and answered after-exercise debriefing questions without much difficulty. Evaluations, in the form of an after-action report by the independent observers, commented upon the many limitations to the construct of the exercise.
Conclusion:
Having an independent observer group at the exercise appeared to provide a value-added benefitfor capturing subjective information and data. However, these data were not in a form conducive to statisticalanalysis. Further work is needed to create an evaluation tool that would allow for statistical analysis so that exercises can be compared and improvements can be objective.
Mass-gathering events are dynamic and challenge traditional medical management systems. To improve the system for the provision of first aid at mass-gathering events, an evaluation of two models that assist in forecasting the number of patients presenting for first-aid services was conducted.
Method:
A prospective evaluation of a recurrent, mass-gathering event was undertaken comparing predicted patient presentations and ambulance transfers generated by a predictive model developed by Arbon et al and a retrospective review of seven years of historical, event data as described by Zeitz et al.
Results:
Patient presentation rate (per 1,000 patrons) for this event was 1.6 and the transport to hospital rate (per 1,000 patrons) was 0.07. The retrospective review closely predicted the actual overall attendance.Both methods forecast the number of patients presenting on a daily basis. The prediction proved to be more accurate, on a day-by-day basis, using the Zeitz method.
Conclusion:
The Arbon method is particularly useful for events where there is no or limited information about previous medical work. Retrospective review of data generated from specific events (Zeitz method) considers the unique and individual variability that can occur from event to event and is more accurate at predicting patient presentations when the data are available. Both methods have the potential to be used more frequently to adequately and efficiently plan for the resources required for specific events.