Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:51:35.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hillsborough football stadium disaster: a single case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Raymond F Travers  and
Gus A Baker
Raymond F Travers
Affiliation:
Scott Clinic, Rainhill, Prescot, Merseyside L35 4PQ, UK
Gus A Baker
Affiliation:
Scott Clinic, Rainhill, Prescot, Merseyside L35 4PQ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Expectations for service provision following a disaster are understandably high but difficult to meet. This report considers the case of a patient with pre-morbid anxiety traits and asthma who suffered organic brain damage as a consequence of the Hillsborough Football Stadium disaster, whose care was reactive rather than proactive and resulted in his compulsory admission to a psychiatric hospital. Aftercare arrangements need to be anticipated in advance and should involve early psychiatric assessment of at-risk patients. Medical control of case management following disasters needs further clarification.

Keywords

Disasterservice coordinationaftercare
Type
Clinical & Brief Reports
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , May 1992 , pp. 57 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.Goldman, B. Spectator events: medical preparation a must. Can Med Assoc J 1988 01 15; 138(2): 164–5.Google Scholar
2.Raphael, B. When disaster strikes: how individuals and communities cope with catastrophe. New York: Basic Books, 1986.Google Scholar
3.Girotti, MJ. Major disaster will not go away! [editorial]. Canadian Journal of Aneasthesia 1988 07: 35 (4): 329–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Edwards, JD. Mass casualties [editorial]. Br J Hosp Med 1989 08; 42(2): 99.Google ScholarPubMed
4a.Wardrope, J, Ryan, F, Clarke, G, Venables, G, Crosby, AC, Redgrave, P. The Hillsborough tragedy. BMJ 1991; 303: 1381–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Rosser, R, Dewar, S. Therapeutic flexibility in the post disaster response. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1991; 84: 2–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Lystad, M, editor. Mental health response to mass emergencies: theory and practice. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1988.Google Scholar
7.Smith, EM, Robin, LN, Przybeck, TR, Goldring, E, Soloman, SD, Cottier, LB, et al.Psychosocial consequences of a disaster. In: Shore, JH, editor. Disaster stress-studies in new methods and findings. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1986: 41–46.Google Scholar
8.Lopez-Ibor, JJ Jr., Carass, SF, Rodriguez-Gamazo, M. Psychopathological aspects of the toxic oil syndrome catrastrophe. Pr J Psychiatry 1985; 147: 352–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Psychiatric intervention after disaster [editorial]. Lancet 1989; 2: 138.Google Scholar
10.Burns, TP, Hollins, SC. Psychiatric response to the Clapham rail crash. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1991; 84: 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Report of the working party on the management of traumatic brain injury. Medical Disability Society, 1988.Google Scholar