Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:35:03.758Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How and Why Do You Declare a Major Incident?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Colin John Smart  and
Ian Maconochie
Colin John Smart*
Affiliation:
Director, TSG Associates Ltd, Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
Ian Maconochie
Affiliation:
Consultant in Paediatric Accident and Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, St. Mary's Hospital, UK
*
Director, TSG Associates, Ltd PO Box 265 Wellington Street, Leeds West Yorkshire, England LS4 2QX E-mail: colin@smartmci.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

The decision to declare a major incident (MI) is not one to be taken lightly, but a delay in doing so may have dire consequences. The aim of this study was to ascertain what factors make specialists from a variety of pro-fessional backgrounds in the United Kingdom determine from an initial visu-al assessment of a scene that a MI should be declared.

Methods:

Participants were presented with three different scenarios, which were presented pictorially. Their responses were noted.

Results:

One hundred seventy-eight professionals took part in this study. For Scenario 1 (a road traffic incident), 101 (57%) declared a MI. For a coach rollover in Scenario 2, a MI was declared by 82 (46%) people, and a MI was declared by 156 (87%) for a rail crash in Scenario 3.

Forty-six participants had attended a MI previously.The results for declar-ing a MI in this group were: (1) Scenario 1, 25 (54%); (2) Scenario 2, 25 (54%); and (3) Scenario 3, 44 (96%). Of this group, 44 had previously had training before experiencing the MI. Those who had >10 years of service in emergency services were more likely to declare a MI in Scenario 2 and 3.

Conclusions:

The main problem with the existing system is the interpreta-tion and subjective nature of the word “major”. Specialists incorporate many individual factors into using the word. Future research should focus on the development of a system tied to more objective analysis.

Keywords

allocationdeclaringdisaster planninghealth servicemajor incidentplansresourcessubjective
Type
Research Article
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 70 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2008

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. National Health Service Executive: Arrangements for Dealing with Major Incidents, Chapter 1.2. London: NHS, p 14.Google Scholar
2. Paturas, JL, Wertz, EM, McSwain, NE Jr : Patient Assessment and Management. In: Prehospital Trauma Life Support, Second Edition. Mosby, , 1990, p 42.Google Scholar
3. Quarantelli, EL: Delivery of Emergency Medical Services in Disaster. Newark: University of Delaware Disaster Research Centre, 1977, p 57.Google Scholar
4. Advanced Life Support Group: Major Incident Medical Management and Support, the Practical Approach. London: BMJ Publishing, 1995, p 19.Google Scholar