Purpose: To examine the relationship between overtriage and critical mortality after a mass casualty incident (MCI) using a simulation model of trauma system response.

Methods: We created a discrete event simulation model of trauma system management of MCIs involving individual patient triage and treatment. Model variables include triage performance, treatment capability, treatment time, and time-dependent mortality of critically injured patients. We model triage as a variable selection process applied to a hypothetical population of critically and noncritically injured patients. Treatment capability is represented by staffed emergency department trauma bays with associated staffed operating rooms that are recycled after each use. We estimated critical and noncritical patient treatment times and time-dependent mortality rates from the trauma literature.

Results: In this simulation model, overtriage, the proportion of noncritical patients among all of those labeled as critical, has a positive, negative, or variable association with critical mortality depending on its etiology (ie, related to changes in triage sensitivity or to changes in the prevalence and total number of critical patients). In all of the modeled scenarios, the ratio of critical patients to treatment capability has a greater impact on critical mortality than overtriage level or time-dependent mortality assumption.

Conclusions: Increasing overtriage may have positive, negative, or mixed effects on critical mortality in this trauma system simulation model. These results, which contrast with prior analyses describing a positive linear relationship between overtriage and mortality, highlight the need for alternative metrics to describe trauma system response after MCIs. We explore using the relative number of critical patients to available and staffed treatment units, or the critical surge to capability ratio, which exhibits a consistent and nonlinear association with critical mortality in this model. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S14–S24)

Current disaster taxonomy describes diversity, distinguishing characteristics, and common relations in disaster event classifications. The impact of compromised public health infrastructure and systems on health consequences defines and greatly influences the manner in which disasters are observed, planned for, and managed, especially those that are geographically widespread, population dense, and prolonged. What may first result in direct injuries and death may rapidly change to excess indirect illness and subsequent death as essential public health resources are destroyed, deteriorate, or are systematically denied to vulnerable populations. Public health and public health infrastructure and systems in developed and developing countries must be seen as strategic and security issues that deserve international public health resource monitoring attention from disaster managers, urban planners, the global humanitarian community, World Health Organization authorities, and participating parties to war and conflict. We posit here that disaster frameworks be reformed to emphasize and clarify the relation of public health emergencies and modern disasters. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:192–199)

Earthquakes are a major natural calamity with pervasive effects on human life and nature. Similar effects are mimicked by man-made disasters such as fuel crises and power outages in developing countries. Natural and man-made disasters can cause intangible human suffering and often leave scars of lifelong psychosocial damage. Lessons from these disasters are frequently not implemented. The main objective of this study was to review the effects of the 2015 earthquakes, fuel crisis, and power outages on the health services of Nepal and formulate recommendations for the future. The impacts of earthquakes on health can be divided into immediate, intermediate, and long-term effects. Power outages and fuel crises have health hazards at all stages. It is imperative to understand the temporal effects of earthquakes, because the major needs soon after the earthquake (emergency care) are vastly different from long-term needs such as rehabilitation and psychosocial support. In Nepal, the inadequate and nearly nonexistent specialized health care at the peripheral level claimed many lives during the earthquakes and left many people disproportionately injured. Preemptive strategies such as mobile critical care units at primary health centers, intensive care training for health workers, and alternative plans for emergency care must be prioritized. Similarly, infrastructural damage led to poor sanitation, and alternative plans for temporary settlements (water supply, food, settlements logistics, space for temporary settlements) must be in place where the danger of disease outbreak is imminent. While much of these strategies are implementable and are often set as priorities, long-term effects of earthquakes such as physical and psychosocial supports are often overlooked. The burden of psychosocial stresses, including depression and physical disabilities, needs to be prioritized by facilitating human resources for mental health care and rehabilitation. In addition, inclusion of mental health and rehabilitation facilities in government health care services of Nepal needs to be prioritized. Similarly, power outages and fuel crises affect health care disproportionately. In the current context where permanent solutions may not be possible, mitigating health hazards, especially cold chain maintenance for essential medicines and continuation of life-saving procedures, are mandatory and policies to regulate all health care services must be undertaken. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:625–632)

The incident command system provides an organizational structure at the agency, discipline, or jurisdiction level for effectively coordinating response and recovery efforts during most conventional disasters. This structure does not have the capacity or capability to manage the complexities of a large-scale health-related disaster, especially a pandemic, in which unprecedented decisions at every level (eg, surveillance, triage protocols, surge capacity, isolation, quarantine, health care staffing, deployment) are necessary to investigate, control, and prevent transmission of disease. Emerging concepts supporting a unified decision-making, coordination, and resource management system through a health-specific emergency operations center are addressed and the potential structure, function, roles, and responsibilities are described, including comparisons across countries with similar incident command systems. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1:135–141)

Both virtual and hybrid simulation training offer a realistic and effective educational framework and opportunity to provide virtual exposure to operational public health skills that are essential for infection control and Ebola treatment management. This training is designed to increase staff safety and create a safe and realistic environment where trainees can gain essential basic and advanced skills. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:543–546

COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that can spread from one person to person. This virus is a novel coronavirus that was first identified during an investigation into an outbreak in Wuhan, China. Iran’s novel coronavirus cases reached 17,361 on 17 March, while death toll reached approximately 1,135. Its first death was officially announced on 20 February 2020 in Qom. The 2019 coronavirus pandemic has affected educational systems around the world, Also in Iran, and led to the closure of face to face courses in schools and universities. Therefore, virtual education can be seen as a turning point in education of these days in Iran.

Families with children with special health care needs may present a challenge for disaster responders. This study examined the level of personal disaster preparedness among this at-risk population in relation to the general population, and explores whether special health care needs or perception of disaster risk affects preparedness levels. A convenience sample of 145 families presenting to an urban tertiary care children's hospital was surveyed using a previously validated instrument to gather information on levels of preparedness and factors influencing preparedness. In spite of significant special health care needs and concern about disasters, families remain unprepared for a disaster event. Health care and psychosocial support workers are in a unique position to increase preparedness levels in this at-risk population.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2010;4:240-245)

Large-scale catastrophic events typically result in a scarcity of essential medical resources and accordingly necessitate the implementation of triage management policies to minimize preventable morbidity and mortality. Accomplishing this goal requires a reconceptualization of triage as a population-based systemic process that integrates care at all points of interaction between patients and the health care system. This system identifies at minimum 4 orders of contact: first order, the community; second order, prehospital; third order, facility; and fourth order, regional level. Adopting this approach will ensure that disaster response activities will occur in a comprehensive fashion that minimizes the patient care burden at each subsequent order of intervention and reduces the overall need to ration care. The seamless integration of all orders of intervention within this systems-based model of disaster-specific triage, coordinated through health emergency operations centers, can ensure that disaster response measures are undertaken in a manner that is effective, just, and equitable. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S35–S39)

High levels of stress are expected when crises affect people’s lives. Therefore, this Web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted among university students from Pakistan to investigate the psychological impairment and coping strategies during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Google Forms were used to disseminate the online questionnaire to assess anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), and coping strategies (Brief-COPE). A total of 1134 responses (age, 21.7 ± 3.5 y) were included. The frequency of students having moderate-severe anxiety and depression (score ≥ 10) were ≈ 34% and 45%, respectively. The respondents’ aged ≥ 31 y had significantly lower depression score than those ≤ 20 y (P = 0.047). Males had significantly less anxiety (6.62 ± 5.70 vs 7.84 ± 5.60; P = 0.001) and depression (8.73 ± 6.84 vs 9.71 ± 7.06; P = 0.031) scores. Those having family members, friends, or acquaintances infected with disease had significantly higher anxiety scores (8.89 ± 5.74 vs 7.09 ± 5.56; P < 0.001). Regarding coping strategies, the majority of respondents were found to have adopted religious/spiritual coping (6.45 ± 1.68) followed by acceptance (5.58 ± 1.65), self-distraction (4.97 ± 1.61), and active coping (4.81 ± 1.57). In conclusion, COVID-19 caused significant impairment on mental health of the students. The most frequent coping strategies adopted by students were religious/spiritual and acceptance coping. During epidemics, mental health of students should not be neglected.

The co-occurrence of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season and the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic creates complex dilemmas for protecting populations from these intersecting threats. Climate change is likely contributing to stronger, wetter, slower-moving, and more dangerous hurricanes. Climate-driven hazards underscore the imperative for timely warning, evacuation, and sheltering of storm-threatened populations – proven life-saving protective measures that gather evacuees together inside durable, enclosed spaces when a hurricane approaches. Meanwhile, the rapid acquisition of scientific knowledge regarding how COVID-19 spreads has guided mass anti-contagion strategies, including lockdowns, sheltering at home, physical distancing, donning personal protective equipment, conscientious handwashing, and hygiene practices. These life-saving strategies, credited with preventing millions of COVID-19 cases, separate and move people apart. Enforcement coupled with fear of contracting COVID-19 have motivated high levels of adherence to these stringent regulations. How will populations react when warned to shelter from an oncoming Atlantic hurricane while COVID-19 is actively circulating in the community? Emergency managers, health care providers, and public health preparedness professionals must create viable solutions to confront these potential scenarios: elevated rates of hurricane-related injury and mortality among persons who refuse to evacuate due to fear of COVID-19, and the resurgence of COVID-19 cases among hurricane evacuees who shelter together.

Objectives: Hospital surge capacity in multiple casualty events (MCE) is the core of hospital medical response, and an integral part of the total medical capacity of the community affected. To date, however, there has been no consensus regarding the definition or quantification of hospital surge capacity. The first objective of this study was to quantitatively benchmark the various components of hospital surge capacity pertaining to the care of critically and moderately injured patients in trauma-related MCE. The second objective was to illustrate the applications of those quantitative parameters in local, regional, national, and international disaster planning; in the distribution of patients to various hospitals by prehospital medical services; and in the decision-making process for ambulance diversion.

Methods: A 2-step approach was adopted in the methodology of this study. First, an extensive literature search was performed, followed by mathematical modeling. Quantitative studies on hospital surge capacity for trauma injuries were used as the framework for our model. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization triage categories (T1-T4) were used in the modeling process for simplicity purposes.

Results: Hospital Acute Care Surge Capacity (HACSC) was defined as the maximum number of critical (T1) and moderate (T2) casualties a hospital can adequately care for per hour, after recruiting all possible additional medical assets. HACSC was modeled to be equal to the number of emergency department beds (#EDB), divided by the emergency department time (EDT); HACSC = #EDB/EDT. In trauma-related MCE, the EDT was quantitatively benchmarked to be 2.5 (hours). Because most of the critical and moderate casualties arrive at hospitals within a 6-hour period requiring admission (by definition), the hospital bed surge capacity must match the HACSC at 6 hours to ensure coordinated care, and it was mathematically benchmarked to be 18% of the staffed hospital bed capacity.

Conclusions: Defining and quantitatively benchmarking the different components of hospital surge capacity is vital to hospital preparedness in MCE. Prospective studies of our mathematical model are needed to verify its applicability, generalizability, and validity.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:117–124)

If the Ebola tragedy of West Africa has taught us anything, it should be that the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) Treaty, which gave unprecedented authority to the World Health Organization (WHO) to provide global public health security during public health emergencies of international concern, has fallen severely short of its original goal. After encouraging successes with the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic, the intent of the legally binding Treaty to improve the capacity of all countries to detect, assess, notify, and respond to public health threats has shamefully lapsed. Despite the granting of 2-year extensions in 2012 to countries to meet core surveillance and response requirements, less than 20% of countries have complied. Today it is not realistic to expect that these gaps will be solved or narrowed in the foreseeable future by the IHR or the WHO alone under current provisions. The unfortunate failures that culminated in an inadequate response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa are multifactorial, including funding, staffing, and poor leadership decisions, but all are reversible. A rush by the Global Health Security Agenda partners to fill critical gaps in administrative and operational areas has been crucial in the short term, but questions remain as to the real priorities of the G20 as time elapses and critical gaps in public health protections and infrastructure take precedence over the economic and security needs of the developed world. The response from the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network and foreign medical teams to Ebola proved indispensable to global health security, but both deserve stronger strategic capacity support and institutional status under the WHO leadership granted by the IHR Treaty. Treaties are the most successful means the world has in preventing, preparing for, and controlling epidemics in an increasingly globalized world. Other options are not sustainable. Given the gravity of ongoing failed treaty management, the slow and incomplete process of reform, the magnitude and complexity of infectious disease outbreaks, and the rising severity of public health emergencies, a recommitment must be made to complete and restore the original mandates as a collaborative and coordinated global network responsibility, not one left to the actions of individual countries. The bottom line is that the global community can no longer tolerate an ineffectual and passive international response system. As such, this Treaty has the potential to become one of the most effective treaties for crisis response and risk reduction worldwide. Practitioners and health decision-makers worldwide must break their silence and advocate for a stronger Treaty and a return of WHO authority. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:568–580)