Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-4hcbs Total loading time: 0.325 Render date: 2021-11-28T03:47:59.497Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Regional Variation in Critical Care Evacuation Needs for Children After a Mass Casualty Incident

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the ability of five New York statewide regions to accommodate 30 children needing critical care after a hypothetical mass casualty incident (MCI) and the duration to complete an evacuation to facilities in other regions if the surge exceeded local capacity.

Methods: A quantitative model evaluated pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) vacancies for MCI patients, based on data on existing resources, historical average occupancy, and evidence on early discharges and transfers in a public health emergency. Evacuation of patients exceeding local capacity to the nearest PICU center with vacancies was modeled in discrete event chronological simulations for three scenarios in each region: pediatric critical care transport teams were considered to originate from other PICU hospitals statewide, using (1) ground ambulances or (2) helicopters, and (3) noncritical care teams were considered to originate from the local MCI region using ground ambulances. Chronology of key events was modeled.

Results: Across five regions, the number of children needing evacuation would vary from 0 to 23. The New York City (NYC) metropolitan area could accommodate all patients. The region closest to NYC could evacuate all excess patients to PICU hospitals in NYC within 12 hours using statewide critical care teams traveling by ground ambulance. Helicopters and local noncritical care teams would not shorten the evacuation. For other statewide regions, evacuation of excess patients by statewide critical care teams traveling by ground ambulance would require up to nearly 26 hours. Helicopter transport would reduce evacuation time by 40%-44%, while local noncritical care teams traveling by ground would reduce evacuation time by 16%-34%.

Conclusions: The present study provides a quantitative, evidence-based approach to estimate regional pediatric critical care evacuation needs after an MCI. Large metropolitan areas with many PICU beds would be better able to accommodate patients in a local MCI, and would serve as a crucial resource if an MCI occurred in a smaller community. Regions near a metropolitan area could be rapidly served by critical care transport teams traveling by ground ambulance. Regions distant from a metropolitan area might benefit from helicopter transport. Using local noncritical care transport teams would involve shorter delays and less expert care during evacuation.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:146–149)

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Kanter, RK, Moran, JR.Hospital emergency surge capacity: an empiric New York statewide study. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50 (3):314319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Mahoney, EJ, Harrington, DT, Biffl, WL, Metzger, J, Oka, T, Cioffi, WG.Lessons learned from a nightclub fire: institutional disaster preparedness. J Trauma. 2005;58 (3):487491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Hospital Surge Model.2010. http://archive.ahrq.gov/prep/hospsurgemodel/. Accessed May 16, 2012.Google Scholar
4.Devereaux, A, Christian, MD, Dichter, JR, et alTask Force for Mass Critical Care Summit Meeting, January 26-27, 2007, Chicago, IL. Chest. 2008;133:1S66S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Kanter, RK, Cooper, A.Mass critical care: pediatric considerations in extending and rationing care in public health emergencies. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009;3(suppl 2)S166S171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.New York State Office of Emergency Management. New York State Emergency Management Office Regions.2006. http://www.semo.state.ny.us/about/regionalMap.cfm. Accessed August 10, 2010.Google Scholar
7.New York State Department of Health. New York State Hospital Profile. http://hospitals.nyhealth.gov/. Accessed July 10, 2010.Google Scholar
8.American Medical Association. Graduate Medical Education, 2010. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/education-careers/graduate-medical-education/freida-online.shtml. Accessed August 10, 2010.Google Scholar
9.Randolph, AG, Gonzales, CA, Cortellini, L, Yeh, TS.Growth of pediatric intensive care units in the United States from 1995 to 2001. J Pediatr. 2004;144 (6):792798.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Mass Evacuation Transportation Model. Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008. http://archive.ahrq.gov/prep/massevac/. Accessed May 16, 2012.Google Scholar
11.Google. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com/maps. Accessed December 28, 2010.Google Scholar
12.Distefano, SM, Graf, JM, Lowry, AW, Sitler, GC.Getting kids from the Big Easy hospitals to our place (not easy): preparing, improvising, and caring for children during mass transport after a disaster. Pediatrics. 2006;117 (5, pt 3):S421S427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Travelmath. Flight distance calculator. http://www.travelmath.com/flight-distance/. Accessed December 28, 2010.Google Scholar
14.US Census Bureau. County population estimates. July 1, 2009. http://www.census.gov/popest/data/datasets.html. Accessed May 16, 2012.Google Scholar
15.Kanter, RK.The 2011 Tuscaloosa tornado: integration of pediatric disaster services into regional systems of care. J Pediatr.2012. Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
9
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Regional Variation in Critical Care Evacuation Needs for Children After a Mass Casualty Incident
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Regional Variation in Critical Care Evacuation Needs for Children After a Mass Casualty Incident
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Regional Variation in Critical Care Evacuation Needs for Children After a Mass Casualty Incident
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *