Developing a mass-casualty medical response to the detonation of an improvised nuclear device (IND) or large radiological dispersal device (RDD) requires unique advanced planning due to the potential magnitude of the event, lack of warning, and radiation hazards. In order for medical care and resources to be collocated and matched to the requirements, a [US] Federal interagency medical response-planning group has developed a conceptual approach for responding to such nuclear and radiological incidents. The “RTR” system (comprising Radiation-specific TRiage, TReatment, TRansport sites) is designed to support medical care following a nuclear incident. Its purpose is to characterize, organize, and efficiently deploy appropriate materiel and personnel assets as close as physically possible to various categories of victims while preserving the safety of responders. The RTR system is not a medical triage system for individual patients. After an incident is characterized and safe perimeters are established, RTR sites should be determined in real-time that are based on the extent of destruction, environmental factors, residual radiation, available infrastructure, and transportation routes. Such RTR sites are divided into three types depending on their physical/situational relationship to the incident. The RTR1 sites are near the epicenter with residual radiation and include victims with blast injuries and other major traumatic injuries including radiation exposure; RTR2 sites are situated in relationship to the plume with varying amounts of residual radiation present, with most victims being ambulatory; and RTR3 sites are collection and transport sites with minimal or no radiation present or exposure risk and a victim population with a potential variety of injuries or radiation exposures. Medical Care sites are predetermined sites at which definitive medical care is given to those in immediate need of care. They include local/regional hospitals, medical centers, other sites such as nursing homes and outpatient clinics, nationwide expert medical centers (such as cancer or burn centers), and possible alternate care facilities such as Federal Medical Stations. Assembly Centers for displaced or evacuating persons are predetermined and spontaneous sites safely outside of the perimeter of the incident, for use by those who need no immediate medical attention or only minor assistance. Decontamination requirements are important considerations for all RTR, Medical Care, and Assembly Center sites and transport vehicles. The US Department of Health and Human Services is working on a long-term project to generate a database for potential medical care sites and assembly centers so that information is immediately available should an incident occur.

No abstract

Objectives: The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, initiated a shift toward a comprehensive, or "allhazards," framework of emergency preparedness in the United States. Since then, the threat of H5N1 avian influenza, the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic, and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic have underscored the importance of considering infectious events within such a framework. Pediatric emergency departments (EDs) were disproportionately burdened by the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic and therefore serve as a robust context for evaluation of pandemic preparedness. The objective of this study was to explore pediatric ED leaders' experiences with preparedness, response, and postincident actions related to the H1N1 pandemic to inform future pandemic and all-hazards planning and policy for EDs. Methods:The authors selected a qualitative design, well suited for exploring complex, multifaceted organizational processes such as planning for and responding to a pandemic and learning from institutional experiences. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit medical directors or their designated physician respondents from pediatric emergency medicine training institutions representing a range of geographic regions across the United States, hospital types, and annual ED volumes; snowball sampling identified additional information-rich respondents. Recruitment began in May 2011 and continued until thematic saturation was reached in January 2012 (n = 20). Data were collected through in-depth individual phone interviews that were recorded and professionally transcribed. Using a standard interview guide, respondents were asked open-ended questions about pandemic planning, response, and institutional learning related to the H1N1 pandemic. Data analysis was performed by a multidisciplinary team using a grounded theory approach to generate themes inductively from respondents' expressed perspectives. The constant comparative method was used to identify emerging themes.Results: Five common themes characterized respondents' experiences with pandemic planning and response: 1) national pandemic influenza preparedness guidance has not fully penetrated to the level of pediatric emergency physician (EP) leaders, leading to variable states of preparedness; 2) pediatric EDs that maintained strong relationships with local public health and other health care entities found those relationships to be beneficial to pandemic response; 3) pediatric EP leaders reported difficulty reconciling public health guidance with the reality of ED practice; 4) although many anticipated obstacles did not materialize, in some cases pediatric EP leaders experienced unexpected institutional challenges; and 5) pediatric EP leaders described varied experiences with organizational learning following the H1N1 pandemic experience.

Lift-assist calls are associated with substantial subsequent utilization of EMS, and should trigger fall prevention and other safety interventions. Based on our data, these calls may be early indicators of medical problems that require more aggressive evaluation.

Some of the most intractable challenges in prehospital medicine include response time optimization, inefficiencies at the emergency medical services (EMS)-emergency department (ED) interface, and the ability to correlate field interventions with patient outcomes. Information technology (IT) can address these and other concerns by ensuring that system and patient information is received when and where it is needed, is fully integrated with prior and subsequent patient information, and is securely archived. Some EMS agencies have begun adopting information technologies, such as wireless transmission of 12-lead electrocardiograms, but few agencies have developed a comprehensive plan for management of their prehospital information and integration with other electronic medical records. This perspective article highlights the challenges and limitations of integrating IT elements without a strategic plan, and proposes an open, interoperable, and scalable prehospital information technology (PHIT) architecture. The two core components of this PHIT architecture are 1) routers with broadband network connectivity to share data between ambulance devices and EMS system information services and 2) an electronic patient care report to organize and archive all electronic prehospital data. To successfully implement this comprehensive PHIT architecture, data and technology requirements must be based on best available evidence, and the system must adhere to health data standards as well as privacy and security regulations. Recent federal legislation prioritizing health information technology may position federal agencies to help design and fund PHIT architectures.