Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
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.
A wide range of natural and man-made hazards increases the health risks at mass gatherings (MGs). Building on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed the Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management (H-EDRM) framework to strengthen preparedness, response, and recovery from health emergencies in the communities and emergency-prone settings, such as MGs. The Jeddah tool is derived from the H-EDRM framework as an all-hazard MG risk assessment tool, which provides a benchmark for monitoring progress made in capacity strengthening over a given period for recurrent MGs. Additionally, it introduces a reputational risk assessment domain to complement vulnerability and capacity assessment matrixes. This paper describes the key elements of the Jeddah tool to improve the understanding of health risk assessment at MGs in the overarching contexts of health emergencies and disaster risk reduction, in line with international goals.
Health care organizations have been challenged by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for some time, while in January 2020, it was not immediately suspected that it would take such a global expansion. In the past, other studies have already pointed out that health care systems, and more specifically hospitals, can be a so-called “soft target” for terrorist attacks. This report has now examined whether this is also the case in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the lockdown, hospitals turned out to be the only remaining soft targets for attacks, given that the other classic targets were closed during the lockdown. On the other hand, other important factors have limited the risk of such attacks in hospitals. The main delaying and relative risk-reducing factors were the access control on temperature and wearing a mask, no visits allowed, limited consultations, and investigations.
But even then, health care systems and hospitals were prone to (cyber)terrorism, as shown by other COVID-19-related institutions, such as pharmaceuticals involved in developing vaccines and health care facilities involved in swab testing and contact tracing. Counter-terrorism medicine (CTM) and social behavioral science can reduce the likelihood and impact of terrorism, but cannot prevent (state-driven) cyberterrorism and actions of lone wolves and extremist factions.
Australia is ranked 71st on the Global Terrorism Index (GTI; 2019), a scoring system of terrorist activities. While it has a relatively low terrorist risk, events globally have wide-ranging repercussions putting first responders and emergency health workers at risk. Counter-Terrorism Medicine (CTM) is rapidly emerging as a sub-specialty needed to address these threats on the front line. This study aims to provide the epidemiological context for the past decade, detailing the unique injury types responders are likely to encounter, and to develop training programs utilizing these data.
Methods:
The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) was searched for all attacks in Australia from the years 2009-2019. Attacks met inclusion criteria if they fulfilled the following terrorism-related criteria as set by the GTD. Ambiguous events were excluded when there was uncertainty as to whether the incident met all of the criteria for inclusion as a GTD terrorist incident. The grey literature was reviewed, and each event was cross-matched with reputable international and national newspaper sources online to confirm or add details regarding weapon type used, and whenever available, details of victim and perpetrator fatalities and injuries.
Results:
Thirty-seven terrorist events occurred in the study time period. Of the thirty-seven incidents, twenty-six (70.2%) involved incendiary weapons, five (13.5%) involved firearms, four (10.8%) involved melee (bladed weapon/knife) attacks, two (5.4%) were explosive/bombing/dynamite attacks, and one (2.7%) was a mixed attack using both incendiary and melee weapons. All except one firearms-related incident (four out of five) resulted in either a fatality or injury or both. Every melee incident resulted in either a fatality or injury or both.
Conclusions:
In the decade from 2009 to 2019, terrorist attacks on Australian soil have been manageable, small-scale incidents with well-understood modalities. Eleven fatalities and fourteen injuries were sustained as a result of terrorist events during that period. Incendiary weapons were the most commonly chosen methodology, followed by firearms, bladed weapons, and explosive/bombings/dynamite attacks.
Infectious disease emergencies are increasingly becoming part of the health care delivery landscape, having implications to not only individuals and the public, but also on those expected to respond to these emergencies. Health care workers (HCWs) are perhaps the most important asset in an infectious disease emergency, yet these individuals have their own barriers and facilitators to them being willing or able to respond.
Aim:
The purpose of this review was to identify factors affecting HCW willingness to respond (WTR) to duty during infectious disease outbreaks and/or bioterrorist events.
Methods:
An integrative literature review methodology was utilized to conduct a structured search of the literature including CINAHL, Medline, Embase, and PubMed databases using key terms and phrases. PRISMA guidelines were used to report the search outcomes and all eligible literature was screened with those included in the final review collated and appraised using a quality assessment tool.
Results:
A total of 149 papers were identified from the database search. Forty papers were relevant following screening, which highlighted facilitators of WTR to include: availability of personal protective equipment (PPE)/vaccine, level of training, professional ethics, family and personal safety, and worker support systems. A number of barriers were reported to prevent WTR for HCWs, such as: concern and perceived risk, interpersonal factors, job-level factors, and outbreak characteristics.
Conclusions:
By comprehensively identifying the facilitators and barriers to HCWs’ WTR during infectious disease outbreaks and/or bioterrorist events, strategies can be identified and implemented to improve WTR and thus improve HCW and public safety.
Without a robust evidence base to support recommendations for medical services at mass gatherings (MGs), levels of care will continue to vary and preventable morbidity and mortality will exist. Accordingly, researchers and clinicians publish case reports and case series to capture and explain some of the health interventions, health outcomes, and host community impacts of MGs. Streamlining and standardizing post-event reporting for MG medical services and associated health outcomes could improve inter-event comparability, thereby supporting and promoting growth of the evidence base for this discipline. The present paper is focused on theory building, proposing a set of domains for data that may support increasingly comprehensive, yet lean, reporting on the health outcomes of MGs. This paper is paired with another presenting a proposal for a post-event reporting template.
Methods:
The conceptual categories of data presented are based on a textual analysis of 54 published post-event medical case reports and a comparison of the features of published data models for MG health outcomes.
Findings:
A comparison of existing data models illustrates that none of the models are explicitly informed by a conceptual lens. Based on an analysis of the literature reviewed, four data domains emerged. These included: (i) the Event Domain, (ii) the Hazard and Risk Domain, (iii) the Capacity Domain, and (iv) the Clinical Domain. These domains mapped to 16 sub-domains.
Discussion:
Data modelling for the health outcomes related to MGs is currently in its infancy. The proposed illustration is a set of operationally relevant data domains that apply equally to small, medium, and large-sized events. Further development of these domains could move the MG community forward and shift post-event health outcomes reporting in the direction of increasing consistency and comprehensiveness.
Conclusion:
Currently, data collection and analysis related to understanding health outcomes arising from MGs is not informed by robust conceptual models. This paper is part of a series of nested papers focused on the future state of post-event medical reporting.
Without a robust evidence base to support recommendations for first aid, health, and medical services at mass gatherings (MGs), levels of care will continue to vary. Streamlining and standardizing post-event reporting for MG medical services could improve inter-event comparability, and prospectively influence event safety and planning through the application of a research template, thereby supporting and promoting growth of the evidence base and the operational safety of this discipline. Understanding the relationships between categories of variables is key. The present paper is focused on theory building, providing an evolving conceptual model, laying the groundwork for exploring the relationships between categories of variables pertaining the health outcomes of MGs.
Methods:
A content analysis of 54 published post-event medical case reports, including a comparison of the features of published data models for MG health outcomes.
Findings:
A layered model of essential conceptual components for post-event medical reporting is presented as the Data Reporting, Evaluation, & Analysis for Mass-Gathering Medicine (DREAM) model. This model is relational and embeds data domains, organized operationally, into “inputs,” “modifiers,” “actuals,” and “outputs” and organized temporally into pre-, during, post-event, and reporting phases.
Discussion:
Situating the DREAM model in relation to existing models for data collection vis a vis health outcomes, the authors provide a detailed discussion on similarities and points of difference.
Conclusion:
Currently, data collection and analysis related to understanding health outcomes arising from MGs is not informed by robust conceptual models. This paper is part of a series of nested papers focused on the future state of post-event medical reporting.
Case reports are commonly used to report the health outcomes of mass gatherings (MGs), and many published reports of MGs demonstrate substantial heterogeneity of included descriptors. As such, it is challenging to perform rigorous comparisons of health services and outcomes between similar and dissimilar events. The degree of variation in published reports has not yet been investigated.
Objective:
Examine patterns of post-event medical reporting in the existing literature and identify inconsistencies in reporting.
Methods:
A systematic review of case reports was conducted. Included were English studies, published between January 2009 and December 2018, in Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (PDM) or Current Sports Medicine Reports (CSMR). Analysis of each paper was used to develop a list of 27 categories of data.
Results:
Seventy-five studies were initially reviewed with 54 publications meeting the inclusion criteria. Forty-two were full case reports (78%) and 12 were conference proceedings (22%). Of the 27 categories of data studied, only 13 were consistently reported in more than 50% of publications. Reporting patterns included inconsistent use of terminology/language and variable retrievability of reports. Reporting on event descriptors, hazard and risk analysis, and clinical outcomes were also inconsistent.
Discussion:
Case reports are essential tools for researchers and event team members such as medical directors and event producers. The authors found that current case reports, in addition to being inconsistent in content, were generally descriptive rather than explanatory; that is, focused on describing the outcomes as opposed to exploring possible connections between context and health outcomes.
Conclusion:
This paper quantifies and demonstrates the current state of heterogeneity in MG event reporting. This heterogeneity is a significant impediment to the functional use of published reports to further the science of MG planning and to improve health outcomes. Future work based on the insights gained from this analysis will aim to align and standardize reporting to improve the quality and value of event reporting.
Standardizing and systematizing the reporting of health outcomes from mass gatherings (MGs) will improve the quality of data being reported. Setting minimum standards for case reporting is an important strategy for improving data quality. This paper is one of a series of papers focused on understanding the current state, and shaping the future state, of post-event case reporting.
Methods:
Multiple data sources were used in creating a lean, yet comprehensive list of essential reporting fields, including a: (1) literature synthesis drawn from analysis of 54 post-event case reports; (2) comparison of existing data models for MGs; (3) qualitative analysis of gaps in current case reports; and (4) set of data domains developed based on the preceding sources.
Findings:
Existing literature fails to consistently report variables that may be essential for not only describing the health outcomes of a given event, but also for explaining those outcomes. In the context of current and future state reporting, 25 essential variables were identified. The essential variables were organized according to four domains, including: (i) Event Domain; (ii) Hazard and Risk Domain; (iii) Capacity Domain; and (iv) Clinical Domain.
Discussion:
The authors propose a first-generation template for post-event medical reporting. This template standardizes the reporting of 25 essential variables. An accompanying data dictionary provides background and standardization for each of the essential variables. Of note, this template is lean and will develop over time, with input from the international MG community. In the future, additional groups of variables may be helpful as “overlays,” depending on the event category and type.
Conclusions:
This paper presents a template for post-event medical reporting. It is hoped that consistent reporting of essential variables will improve both data collection and the ability to make comparisons between events so that the science underpinning MG health can continue to advance.
Recently, the Thai government introduced a novel program to train health volunteers as first responders to deal with increasing acute illness and injuries. This case study demonstrates the potential of this program to improve public access to emergency care through the integration of emergency care with a community-based health care system, specifically in a rural setting. A 39-year-old man collapsed with cardiac arrest in his village. Lay first responders from his neighborhood attended him immediately, administered chest compressions, and contacted Emergency Medical Services (EMS). They continued chest compressions until the EMS unit arrived. While the EMS transported him to the hospital, the patient attained return of spontaneous circulation and consciousness. He returned to his normal life without obvious neurological problems. The Thai strategy to develop a community-based first responder network through health volunteer training would address the issue of inequitable access to emergency care and improve patients’ chances of survival and prognoses.
Alternate care sites (ACS) are locations that can be converted to provide either in-patient and/or out-patient health care services when existing facilities are compromised by a hazard impact or the volume of patients exceeds available capacity and/or capabilities. In March through May of 2020, Michigan Medicine (MM), the affiliated health system of the University of Michigan, planned a 500 bed ACS at an off-site location. Termed the Michigan Medicine Field Hospital (MMFH), this ACS was intended to be a step-down care facility for low-acuity COVID-19 positive MM patients who could be transitioned from the hospital setting and safely cared for prior to discharge home, while also allowing increased bed capacity in the remaining MM hospitals for additional critical patient care. The planning was organized into six units: personnel and labor, security, clinical operations, logistics and supply, planning and training, and communications. The purpose of this report is to describe the development and planning of an ACS within the MM academic medical center (AMC) to discuss anticipated barriers to success and to suggest guidance for health systems in future planning.
The 2017 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) guideline recommends that Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers can perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with synchronous or asynchronous ventilation until an advanced airway has been placed. In the current literature, limited data on CPR performed with continuous compressions and asynchronous ventilation with bag-valve-mask (BVM) are available.
Study Objective:
In this study, researchers aimed to compare the effectiveness of asynchronous BVM and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ventilation during CPR with continuous chest compressions.
Methods:
Emergency medicine residents and interns were included in the study. The participants were randomly assigned to resuscitation teams with two rescuers. The cross-over simulation study was conducted on two CPR scenarios: asynchronous ventilation via BVM during a continuous chest compression and asynchronous ventilation via LMA during a continuous chest compression in cardiac arrest patient with asystole. The primary endpoints were the ventilation-related measurements.
Results:
A total of 92 volunteers were included in the study and 46 CPRs were performed in each group. The mean rate of ventilations of the LMA group was significantly higher than that of the BVM group (13.7 [11.7-15.7] versus 8.9 [7.5-10.3] breaths/minute; P <.001). The mean volume of ventilations of the LMA group was significantly higher than that of the BVM group (358.4 [342.3-374.4] ml versus 321.5 [303.9-339.0] ml; P = .002). The mean minute ventilation volume of the LMA group was significantly higher than that of the BVM group (4.88 [4.15-5.61] versus 2.99 [2.41-3.57] L/minute; P <.001). Ventilations exceeding the maximum volume limit occurred in two (4.3%) CPRs in the BVM group and in 11 (23.9%) CPRs in the LMA group (P = .008).
Conclusion:
The results of this study show that asynchronous BVM ventilation with continuous chest compressions is a reliable and effective strategy during CPR under simulation conditions. The clinical impact of these findings in actual cardiac arrest patients should be evaluated with further studies at real-life scenes.
Hurricane Harvey (2017) forced the closure of hemodialysis centers across Harris County, Texas (USA) disrupting the provision of dialysis services. This study aims to estimate the percentage of hemodialysis clinics flooded after Harvey, to identify the proportion of such clinics located in high-risk flood zones, and to assess the sensitivity of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for estimation of flood risk.
Methods:
Data on 124 hemodialysis clinics in Harris County were extracted from Medicare.gov and geocoded using ArcGIS Online. The FIRMs were overlaid to identify the flood zone designation of each hemodialysis clinic.
Results:
Twenty-one percent (26 of 124) of hemodialysis clinics in Harris County flooded after Harvey. Of the flooded clinics, 57.7% were in a high-risk flood zone, 30.8% were within 1km of a high-risk flood zone, and 11.5% were not in or near a high-risk flood zone. The FIRMs had a sensitivity of 58%, misidentifying 42% (11 of 26) of the clinics flooded.
Conclusion:
Hurricanes are associated with severe disruptions of medical services, including hemodialysis. With one-quarter of Harris County in the 100-year floodplain, projected increases in the frequency and severity of disasters, and inadequate updates of flood zone designation maps, the implementation of new regulations that address the development of hemodialysis facilities in high-risk flood areas should be considered.
The dispatch of Advanced Life Support (ALS) teams in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is still a hardly studied aspect of prehospital emergency logistics. In 2015, the dispatch algorithm of Emilia Est Emergency Operation Centre (EE-EOC) was implemented and the dispatch of ALS teams was changed from primary to secondary based on triage of dispatched vehicles for high-priority interventions when teams with Immediate Life Support (ILS) skills were dispatched.
Objectives:
This study aimed to evaluate the effects on the appropriateness of ALS teams’ intervention and their employment time, and to compare sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm implementation.
Design:
This was a retrospective before-after observational study.
Settings and Participants:
Primary dispatches managed by EE-EOC involving ambulances and/or ALS teams were included. Two groups were created on the basis of the years of intervention (2013-2014 versus 2017-2018).
Intervention:
A switch from primary to secondary dispatch of ALS teams in case of high-priority dispatches managed by ILS teams was implemented.
Outcomes:
Appropriateness of ALS team intervention, total task time of ALS vehicles, and sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm were reviewed.
Results:
The study included 242,501 emergency calls that generated 56,567 red code dispatches. The new algorithm significantly increased global sensitivity and specificity of the system in terms of recognition of potential need of ALS intervention and the specificity of primary ALS dispatch. The appropriateness of ALS intervention was significantly increased; total tasking time per day for ALS and the number of critical dispatches without ALS available were reduced.
Conclusion:
The revision of the dispatch criteria and the extension of the two-tiered dispatch for ALS teams significantly increased the appropriateness of ALS intervention and reduced both the global tasking time and the number of high-priority dispatches without ALS teams available.
On March 23, 2020, the United Nations (UN) made an “Appeal for a Global Ceasefire following the Outbreak of Coronavirus.” Despite this appeal, the Nagorno-Karabagh war was instigated on September 27, 2020. This Guest Editorial frames the conflict in the context of the UN appeal and by introducing a figure that plots seven-day average coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases overlaid with key inflection points to illustrate the clear impact that conflict has had on pandemic spread in Armenia. The conflict in Nagorno-Karabagh provides a timely, concise, and illustrative example of conflict and its impact on health. Finally, an argument is made that the ability to enforce the UN “Appeal for a Global Ceasefire” is essential to ensure global health and security.
On-boat resuscitation can be applied by lifeguards in an inflatable rescue boat (IRB). Due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) and recommendations for the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), prehospital care procedures need to be re-evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine how the use of PPE influences the amount of preparation time needed before beginning actual resuscitation and the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR; QCPR) on an IRB.
Methods:
Three CPR tests were performed by 14 lifeguards, in teams of two, wearing different PPE: (1) Basic PPE (B-PPE): gloves, a mask, and protective glasses; (2) Full PPE (F-PPE): B-PPE + a waterproof apron; and (3) Basic PPE + plastic blanket (B+PPE). On-boat resuscitation using a bag-valve-mask (BVM) and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter was performed sailing at 20km/hour.
Results:
Using B-PPE takes less time and is significantly faster than F-PPE (B-PPE 17 [SD = 2] seconds versus F-PPE 69 [SD = 17] seconds; P = .001), and the use of B+PPE is slightly higher (B-PPE 17 [SD = 2] seconds versus B+PPE 34 [SD = 6] seconds; P = .002). The QCPR remained similar in all three scenarios (P >.05), reaching values over 79%.
Conclusion:
The use of PPE during on-board resuscitation is feasible and does not interfere with quality when performed by trained lifeguards. The use of a plastic blanket could be a quick and easy alternative to offer extra protection to lifeguards during CPR on an IRB.
In South Korea, the law concerning automated external defibrillators (AEDs) states that they should be installed in specific places including apartment complexes. This study was conducted to investigate the current status and effectiveness of installation and usage of AEDs in South Korea.
Methods:
Installation and usage of AEDs in South Korea is registered in the National Emergency Medical Center (NEMC) database. Compared were the installed number, usage, and annual rate of AED use according to places of installation. All data were obtained from the NEMC database.
Results:
After excluding AEDs installed in ambulances or fire engines (n = 2,003), 36,498 AEDs were registered in South Korea from 1998 through 2018. A higher number of AEDs were installed in places required by the law compared with those not required by the law (20,678 [56.7%] vs. 15,820 [43.3%]; P <.001). Among them, 11,318 (31.0%) AEDs were installed in apartment complexes. The overall annual rate of AED use was 0.38% (95% CI, 0.33-0.44). The annual rate of AED use was significantly higher in places not required by the law (0.62% [95% CI, 0.52-0.72] versus 0.21% [95% CI, 0.16-0.25]; P <.001). The annual rate of AED use in apartment complexes was 0.13% (95% CI, 0.08-0.17).
Conclusion:
There were significant mismatches between the number of installed AEDs and the annual rate of AED use among places. To optimize the benefit of AEDs in South Korea, changes in the policy for selecting AED placement are needed.