Purpose This retrospective study reports the outcome of a mass casualty incident (MCI) caused by a fire in a nursing home. Methods Data from the medical charts and registration system of the Major Incident Hospital (MIH) and ambulance service were analyzed. The evaluation reports from the MIH and an independent research institute were used. The protocol for reports from major accidents and disaster was used to standardize the reporting [Lennquist, in Int J Disaster Med 1(1): [79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86] 2003]. Results The emergency services were quickly at the scene. The different levels of pre-hospital management performed a tight coordination. However, miscommunication led to confusion in the registration and tracking of patients. In total, 49 persons needed medical treatment, 46 were treated in the MIH. Because of (possible) inhalation injury nine patients needed mechanical ventilation and nine patients were hospitalized to exclude delayed onset of pulmonary symptoms. No incident related deaths occurred. The intensive care unit of the MIH was initially understaffed despite the efforts of the automated calling system and switchboard operators. The handwritten registration of incoming staff was incomplete and should be performed digitally. Some staff members were unfamiliar with the MIH procedures. The medical chart appeared too extensive. Miscommunication between chain partners resulted in the delayed sharing of (semi) medical information. Conclusion The different levels of incident managers performed a tight coordination. The MIH demonstrated its potency to provide emergency care for 46 patients and 9 intubated patients. No deaths or persistent disabilities occurred. Areas of improvement were recognized both in the pre-hospital as the hospital phase.

BackgroundThe Netherlands’ 3-year training in Emergency Medicine (EM) was formally approved and introduced in November 2008. To identify areas for improvement, we conducted the first evaluation of this curriculum from the residents’ perspective.MethodsA questionnaire was composed on ten aspects of the curriculum. It contained multiple-choice, open and opinion questions; answers to the latter were classified using the Likert scale. The questionnaires were mailed to all enrolled residents.ResultsWe mailed questionnaires to all 189 enrolled residents, and 105 responded (55.6%). Although they were satisfied with their training overall, 96.2% thought it was currently too short: 18.3% desired extension to 4 years, 76.0% to 5 and 1.9% to 6 years. Nevertheless, residents expected that they would function effectively as emergency physicians (EPs) after finishing their 3-year training program. Bedside teaching was assessed positively by 35.2%. All rotations were assessed positively, with the general practice rotation seen as contributing the least to the program. According to 43.7%, supervising EPs were available for consultation; 40.7% thought that, in a clinical capacity, the EP was sufficiently present during residents’ shifts. When EPs were present, 82.5% found them to be easily accessible, and 66.6% viewed them as role models. In the Emergency Medicine Departments (EDs) with a higher number of EPs employed, residents tended to perceive better supervision and were more likely to see their EPs as role models. While residents were stimulated to do research, actual support and assistance needed to be improved.ConclusionAlthough overall, the current training program was evaluated positively, the residents identified four areas for improvement: (1) in training hospitals, trained EPs should be present more continuously for clinical supervision; (2) bedside teaching should be improved, (3) scientific research should be facilitated more and (4) the training program should be extended.

Objective: Improve documentation during a mass casualty incident (MCI).Design: This is a retrospective chart review.Setting: This chart review was done in the Major Incident Hospital (MIH). The MIH is a highly prepared back-up hospital in the center of the Netherland that can be deployed in case of a major incident.Patients, participants: Until recently, the MIH used an extensive paper medical record: the hospital in special circumstances medical record (HSCMR). A concise primary survey form was developed and attached to the HSCMR, forming the pilot disaster medical record (pDMR). In this retrospective chart review, primary survey data documented in the HSCMR (during a MCI) were compared to the pDMR (during a drill exercise). Three triage categories were used: T1, immediate; T2, urgent; and T3, delayed.Main outcome: The MIH hypothesized that a dedicated, concise, and practical primary survey form could improve quantitative patient documentation during an MCI. Significant differences were tested with the chi square and Fisher exact test (p 0.05).Results: The pDMR was used significantly more often 61 percent vs 89 percent (p = 0.001), especially in T1 and T2 patients. Quantitative documentation in the pDMR improved significantly on airway, breathing, breathing frequency, saturation, circulation, heart rate, blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Score, exposure, and medication given but not in cervical spine and temperature. Conclusion: Significantly more primary survey forms were used and more data were documented using the pDMR, especially in the most critical patients. An MCI medical record should be simple and concise and should not deviate from daily routine.