Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T07:57:49.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Developing the Fourth Evaluation Dimension: A Protocol for Evaluation of Video From the Patient’s Perspective During Major Incident Exercises

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2017

J.J. Mark Haverkort*
Affiliation:
Major Incident Hospital, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
Luke P.H. Leenen
Affiliation:
Major Incident Hospital, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands Department of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to J.J.M. Haverkort, MD, Major Incident Hospital, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Huispostnummer B.00.118, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands (e-mail: jjm.haverkort@outlook.com).

Abstract

Objective

Presently used evaluation techniques rely on 3 traditional dimensions: reports from observers, registration system data, and observational cameras. Some of these techniques are observer-dependent and are not reproducible for a second review. This proof-of-concept study aimed to test the feasibility of extending evaluation to a fourth dimension, the patient’s perspective.

Methods

Footage was obtained during a large, full-scale hospital trauma drill. Two mock victims were equipped with point-of-view cameras filming from the patient’s head. Based on the Major Incident Hospital’s first experience during the drill, a protocol was developed for a prospective, standardized method to evaluate a hospital’s major incident response from the patient’s perspective. The protocol was then tested in a second drill for its feasibility.

Results

New insights were gained after review of the footage. The traditional observer missed some of the evaluation points, which were seen on the point-of-view cameras. The information gained from the patient’s perspective proved to be implementable into the designed protocol.

Conclusion

Use of point-of-view camera recordings from a mock patient’s perspective is a valuable addition to traditional evaluation of trauma drills and trauma care. Protocols should be designed to optimize and objectify judgement of such footage. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:594–599)

Type
Concepts in Disaster Medicine
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2017 

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

REFERENCES

1. Williams, J, Nocera, M, Casteel, C. The effectiveness of disaster training for health care workers: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(3):211-222, 22 e1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.09.030.Google Scholar
2. Kaji, AH, Langford, V, Lewis, RJ. Assessing hospital disaster preparedness: a comparison of an on-site survey, directly observed drill performance, and video analysis of teamwork. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(3):195-201, e1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.10.026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Marres, G, Bemelman, M, van der Eijk, J, et al. Major Incident Hospital: development of a permanent facility for management of incident casualties. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2009;35(3):203-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-009-8230-1.Google Scholar
4. Marres, GM, van der Eijk, J, Bemelman, M, et al. Evaluation of admissions to the Major Incident Hospital based on a standardized protocol. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2011;37(1):19-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00068-010-0067-0.Google Scholar
5. Auf der Heide, E. The importance of evidence-based disaster planning. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47(1):34-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.05.009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Markenson, D, DiMaggio, C, Redlener, I. Preparing health professions students for terrorism, disaster, and public health emergencies: core competencies. Acad Med. 2005;80(6):517-526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200506000-00002.Google Scholar
7. Green, GB, Modi, S, Lunney, K, et al. Generic evaluation methods for disaster drills in developing countries. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41(5):689-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mem.2003.147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Klein, KR, Brandenburg, DC, Atas, JG, et al. The use of trained observers as an evaluation tool for a multi-hospital bioterrorism exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2005;20(3):159-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X00002387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Tiel Groenestege-Kreb, D, van Maarseveen, O, Leenen, L. Trauma team. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(2):258-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeu236.Google Scholar
10. Santora, TA, Trooskin, SZ, Blank, CA, et al. Video assessment of trauma response: adherence to ATLS protocols. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14(6):564-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90100-X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Blank-Reid, CA, Kaplan, LJ. Video recording trauma resuscitations: a guide to system set-up, personnel concerns, and legal issues. J Trauma Nurs. 1996;3(1):9-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00043860-199601000-00008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Scherer, LA, Chang, MC, Meredith, JW, et al. Videotape review leads to rapid and sustained learning. Am J Surg. 2003;185(6):516-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00062-X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Haverkort and Leenen supplementary material

Haverkort and Leenen supplementary material 1

Download Haverkort and Leenen supplementary material(Video)
Video 15.3 MB

Haverkort and Leenen supplementary material

Haverkort and Leenen supplementary material 2

Download Haverkort and Leenen supplementary material(Video)
Video 21 MB