A Mass Casualty Incident response (MCI) full scale exercise (FSEx) assures MCI first responder (FR) competencies. Simulation and serious gaming platforms (Simulation) have been considered to achieve and maintain FR competencies. The translational science (TS) T0 question was asked: how can FRs achieve similar MCI competencies as a FSEx through the use of MCI simulation exercises?

T1 stage (Scoping Review): PRISMA-ScR was conducted to develop statements for the T2 stage modified Delphi (mD) study. 1320 reference titles and abstracts were reviewed with 215 full articles progressing for full review leading to 97 undergoing data extraction.

T2 stage (mD study): Selected experts were presented with 27 statements derived from T1 data with instruction to rank each statement on a 7-point linear numeric scale, where 1 = disagree and 7 = agree. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤ 1.0.

After 3 mD rounds, 19 statements attained consensus and 8 did not attain consensus.

MCI simulation exercises can be developed to achieve similar competencies as FSEx by incorporating the 19 statements that attained consensus through the TS stages of a scoping review (T1) and mD study (T2), and continuing to T3 implementation, and then T4 evaluation stages.

While there are accepted triage and treatment guidelines for the entrapped and mangled extremity in civilian and military resource rich environments, there are none for resource-scarce environments.

A PRISMA systematic literature review was performed to elucidate the current triage and treatment of the entrapped and mangled extremity to understand the factors that contribute to the decision to amputate, or not amputate, and to extract data to develop clinical guidelines.

A lead researcher followed the PRISMA systematic literature review search strategy inclusion and exclusion criteria.

A first reviewer was randomly assigned sources. One of the two lead researchers was the second reviewer. Each determined the Level of Evidence (LOE) and Quality of Evidence (QE) from each source.

Five-hundred ninety-seven (597) records were screened. Fifty-eight (58) articles were entered into the final study. There was one study determined to be LOE-1, 29 LOE-2, and 28 LOE-3 with 15 determined to achieve QE-1, 37 QE-2, and six QE-3.

Data extracted included relevant information to develop clinical guidelines to include physiologic parameters, injury patterns or procedures, imaging, rehabilitation, ethics, and the informed consent process.

This systematic literature review showed that there is a lack of studies producing strong evidence to support the triage and treatment of an entrapped or mangled extremity in resource-scarce environments. A Delphi method study is suggested to adapt and modify available evidence extracted to create clinical guidelines in the resource-scarce environment.

Emerging evidence is guiding changes in prehospital management of potential spinal injuries. The majority of settings related to current recommendations are in resource-rich environments. Whereas there is a lack of guidance on the provision of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in resource-scarce environments (RSE).

What is appropriate SMR in RSE?

The first round of this Modified Delphi (mD) study was a structured focus group. The result of the focus group discussion of open-ended questions produced ten statements that were added to ten statements derived from Fischer (2018) to create the 20 mD statements presented to the experts.

Experts rated their agreement with each statement on a scale from one to seven. Consensus amongst experts was defined as SD≤1.0. Statements that were in agreement reaching consensus were included in the final report. Those not reaching consensus advanced to the next mD round.

For these subsequent rounds, experts were shown the mean response and their own response for each of the remaining statements and asked to reconsider their rating. As above, those that did not reach consensus advanced to the next round until consensus was reached for each statement.

Twenty-two experts completed the first mD round, 19 completed the second mD round, and 16 completed the third mD round. Eleven statements reached consensus (Table 1). Nine statements did not reach consensus (Table 2).

Experts reached consensus offering 11 statements to be incorporated into the creation of SMR clinical guidelines in RSE.

Tables and Figures (optional)

Table 1.

Table 2.

Asymmetric warfare and the reaction to its threats have implications in the way far-forward medical assistance is provided in such settings. Investments in far-forward emergency resuscitation and stabilization can contribute to saving lives and increase the resilience of health systems. Thus, it is proposed to extend the use of the Haddon Matrix to determine a set of strategies to better understand and prioritize activities to prepare for and set-up frontline care in the form of Trauma Stabilization Points (TSPs).

An expert consensus methodology was used to achieve the research aim. A small subject matter experts’ group was convened to create and validate the content of the Haddon Matrix.

The result of the expert group consultations presented an overview of TSP Preparedness and Operational Readiness activities within a Haddon Matrix framework. Main strategies to be adopted within the cycle from pre- to post-event had been identified and presented considering the identified opportunities in the context of the possibility of implementation. Of particular importance was the revision of a curriculum that fits the civilian medical system and facilitates its adaptation to the context and available resources.

The new framework to enhance frontline care preparedness and response using the Haddon Matrix facilitated the identification of a set of strategies to support frontline health care workers in a more efficient manner. Since the existing approach and tools are insufficient for modern warfare, additional research is needed.

In mass casualty scenarios, patients with apparent hemodynamic and respiratory stability might have occult life-threatening injuries. These patients could benefit from more accurate triage methods. This study assessed the impact of point-of-care ultrasound on the accuracy of secondary triage conducted at an advanced medical post to enhance the detection of patients who, despite their apparent clinically stable condition, could benefit from earlier evacuation to definitive care or immediate life-saving treatment.

A mass casualty simulated event consisting of a bomb blast in a remote area was conducted with 10 simulated casualties classified as YELLOW at the primary triage scene; patients were evaluated by 4 physicians at an advanced medical post. Three patients had, respectively, hemoperitoneum, pneumothorax, and hemothorax. Only 2 physicians had sonographic information.

All 4 physicians were able to suspect hemoperitoneum as a possible critical condition to be managed first, but only physicians with additional sonographic information accurately detected pneumothorax and hemothorax, thus deciding to immediately evacuate or treat.

Hospitals are expected to operate at a high performance level even under exceptional conditions of peak demand and resource disruptions. This understanding is not mature yet and there are wide areas of possible improvement. In particular, the fast mobilization and reconfiguration of resources frequently result into the severe disruption of elective activities, worsening the quality of care. This becomes particularly evident during the on-going coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. More resilient resource allocation strategies, that is, which adapt to the dynamics of the prevailing circumstance, are needed to maximize the effectiveness of health-care delivery. In this study, a simulation approach was adopted to assess and compare different hospital’s adaptive resource allocation strategies in responding to a sudden onset disaster mass casualty incident (MCI).

A specific set of performance metrics was developed to take into consideration multiple objectives and priorities and holistically assess the effectiveness of health-care delivery when coping with an MCI event. Discrete event simulation (DES) and system dynamics (SD) were used to model the key hospital processes and the MCI plan.

In the daytime scenario, during the recovery phase of the disaster, a gradual disengagement of resources from the emergency department (ED) to restart ordinary activities in operating rooms and wards returned the best performance. In the night scenario, the absorption capacity of the ED was evaluated by identifying the current bottleneck and assessment of the benefit of different resource mobilization strategies.

The present study offers a robust approach, effective strategies and new insights to design more resilient plans to cope with MCIs. It becomes particularly relevant when considering the risk of indirect damage of emergencies, where all the available resources are shifted from the care of the ordinary to the “disaster” patients, like during the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. Future research is needed to widen the scope of the analysis and take into consideration additional resilience capacities such as operational coordination mechanisms among multiple hospitals in the same geographic area.

Hospitals are expected to operate at a high-performance level even under exceptional conditions of peak demand and resource disruptions. This understanding is not mature yet, and there are wide areas of possible improvement. In particular, the fast mobilization and reconfiguration of resources frequently result into the severe disruption of elective activities, worsening the quality of care. More resilient resource allocation strategies, ie, which adapt to the dynamics of the prevailing circumstance, are needed to maximize the effectiveness of health-care delivery. In this study, a simulation approach was adopted to assess and compare different hospital’s adaptive resource allocation strategies in responding to a mass casualty incident (MCI).

A specific set of performance metrics was developed to take into consideration multiple objectives and priorities and holistically assess the effectiveness of health-care delivery when coping with an MCI event. Discrete event simulation (DES) and system dynamics (SD) were used to model the key hospital processes and the MCI plan.

In the daytime scenario, during the recovery phase of the emergency, a gradual disengagement of resources from the emergency department (ED) to restart ordinary activities in operating rooms and wards, returned the best performance. In the night scenario, the absorption capacity of the ED was evaluated by identifying the current bottleneck and assessment of the benefit of different resource mobilization strategies.

The present study offers a robust approach, effective strategies, and new insights to design more resilient plans to cope with MCIs. Future research is needed to widen the scope of the analysis and take into consideration additional resilience capacities, such as operational coordination mechanisms, among multiple hospitals in the same geographic area.

Prehospital time affects survival in trauma patients. Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are overwhelming events where medical care exceeds available resources. This study aimed at evaluating the prehospital time during MCIs and investigating the effect of triage.

A retrospective analysis was performed using Florida’s Event Medical Services Tracking and Reporting System database. All patients involved in MCIs during 2018 were accessed, and prehospital time intervals were evaluated and compared to that of non-MCIs. The effect of MCI triage and field triage (Field Triage Criteria) on prehospital time was evaluated.

In 2018, it was estimated that 2236 unique MCIs occurred in Florida, with a crude incidence of 10.1-10.9/100000 people. 2180 EMS units arrived at the hospital for patient disposition with a median alarm-to-hospital time of 43.74 minutes, significantly longer than non-MCIs (39.15 min; P < 0.001). MCI triage and field triage were both associated with shorter alarm-to-hospital time (39.37 min and 37.55 min, respectively).

MCIs resulted in longer prehospital time intervals than non-MCIs. This finding suggests that additional efforts are needed to reduce the prehospital time for MCI patients. MCI triage and field triage were both associated with shorter alarm-to-hospital times. Widespread use may improve prehospital MCI care.

Emerging evidence is guiding changes in prehospital management of potential spinal injuries. The majority of settings related to current recommendations are in resource-rich environments (RREs), whereas there is a lack of guidance on the provision of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in resource-scarce environments (RSEs), such as: mass-casualty incidents (MCIs); low-middle income countries; complex humanitarian emergencies; conflict zones; and prolonged transport times. The application of Translational Science (TS) in the Disaster Medicine (DM) context was used to develop this study, leading to statements that can be used in the creation of evidence-based clinical guidelines (CGs).

What is appropriate SMR in RSEs?

The first round of this modified Delphi (mD) study was a structured focus group conducted at the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) Congress in Brisbane Australia on May 9, 2019. The result of the focus group discussion of open-ended questions produced ten statements that were added to ten statements derived from Fischer (2018) to create the second mD round questionnaire.

Academic researchers and educators, operational first responders, or first receivers of patients with suspected spinal injuries were identified to be mD experts. Experts rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1.0. Statements that were in agreement reaching consensus were included in the final report; those that were not in agreement but reached consensus were removed from further consideration. Those not reaching consensus advanced to the third mD round.

For subsequent rounds, experts were shown the mean response and their own response for each of the remaining statements and asked to reconsider their rating. As above, those that did not reach consensus advanced to the next round until consensus was reached for each statement.

Twenty-two experts agreed to participate with 19 completing the second mD round and 16 completing the third mD round. Eleven statements reached consensus. Nine statements did not reach consensus.

Experts reached consensus offering 11 statements to be incorporated into the creation of SMR CGs in RSEs. The nine statements that did not reach consensus can be further studied and potentially modified to determine if these can be considered in SMR CGs in RSEs.