Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T11:25:52.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergency Medical Services Response to Active Shooter Incidents: Provider Comfort Level and Attitudes Before and After Participation in a Focused Response Training Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2014

Jerrilyn Jones ,
Ricky Kue ,
Patricia Mitchell ,
Sgt. Gary Eblan  and
K. Sophia Dyer
Jerrilyn Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts USA City of Boston Emergency Medical Services, Boston, Massachusetts USA
Ricky Kue*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts USA City of Boston Emergency Medical Services, Boston, Massachusetts USA
Patricia Mitchell
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts USA
Sgt. Gary Eblan
Affiliation:
City of Boston Police Department Training Academy, Boston, Massachusetts USA
K. Sophia Dyer
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts USA City of Boston Emergency Medical Services, Boston, Massachusetts USA
*
Correspondence: Ricky C. Kue, MD, MPH, FACEP Boston EMS Research, Training, and Quality Improvement Division 785 Albany Street Boston, Massachusetts 02118 USA E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) routinely stage in a secure area in response to active shooter incidents until the scene is declared safe by law enforcement. Due to the time-sensitive nature of injuries at these incidents, some EMS systems have adopted response tactics utilizing law enforcement protection to expedite life-saving medical care.

Objective

Describe EMS provider perceptions of preparedness, adequacy of training, and general attitudes toward active shooter incident response after completing a tactical awareness training program.

Methods

An unmatched, anonymous, closed-format survey utilizing a five-point Likert scale was distributed to participating EMS providers before and after a focused training session on joint EMS/police active shooter rescue team response. Descriptive statistics were used to compare survey results. Secondary analysis of responses based on prior military or tactical medicine training was performed using a chi-squared analysis.

Results

Two hundred fifty-six providers participated with 88% (225/256) pretraining and 88% (224/256) post-training surveys completed. Post-training, provider agreement that they felt adequately prepared to respond to an active shooter incident changed from 41% (92/225) to 89% (199/224), while agreement they felt adequately trained to provide medical care during an active shooter incident changed from 36% (82/225) to 87% (194/224). Post-training provider agreement that they should never enter a building with an active shooter changed from 73% (165/225) to 61% (137/224). Among the pretraining surveys, significantly more providers without prior military or tactical experience agreed they should never enter a building with an active shooter until the scene was declared safe (78% vs 50%, P = .002), while significantly more providers with prior experience felt both adequately trained to provide medical care in an active shooter environment (56% vs 31%, P = .007) and comfortable working jointly with law enforcement within a building if a shooter were still inside (76% vs 56%, P = .014). There was no difference in response to these questions in the post-training survey.

Conclusions

Attitudes and perceptions regarding EMS active shooter incident response appear to change among providers after participation in a focused active shooter response training program. Further studies are needed to determine if these changes are significant and whether early EMS response during an active shooter incident improves patient outcomes.

JonesJ , KueR , MitchellP , EblanG , DyerKS . Emergency Medical Services Response to Active Shooter Incidents: Provider Comfort Level and Attitudes Before and After Participation in a Focused Response Training Program. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(4):1-7.

Keywords

active shooterEmergency Medical Servicesresponseshooting
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , August 2014 , pp. 350 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2014 

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. Department of Homeland Security. Active shooter—How to respond. October 2008. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2013.Google Scholar
2. Schweit K. Addressing the problem of the active shooter. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. May 2013. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2013/May/active-shooter. Accessed May 23, 2013.Google Scholar
3. Garrett, R. Marching to the sounds of gunshots: Virginia Tech incident puts emphasis on active shooter response. Law Enforcement Tech. 2007;34(6):54-63.Google Scholar
4. Mabry, R, McManus, J. Prehospital advances in the management of severe penetrating trauma. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(7 Suppl):S258-S266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Kotwal, R, Montgomery, H, Kotwal, B, et al. Eliminating preventable death on the battlefield. Arch Surg. 2011;146(12):1350-1358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Smith, ER, Iselin, B. Toward the sound of shooting: Arlington County, VA rescue task force represents a new medical response model to active shooter incidents. JEMS. 2009;34(12):48-55.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Butler, F. Tactical combat casualty care: update 2009. J Trauma. 2010;69(1 Suppl):S10-S13.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Reilly, MJ, Markenson, D, DiMaggio, C. Comfort level of emergency medical service providers in responding to weapons of mass destruction events: impact of training and equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22(4):297-303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Phelps, S. Mission failure: emergency medical services response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22(4):293-296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Markenson, D, Reilly, MJ, DiMaggio, C. Public health department training of emergency medical technicians for bioterrorism and public health emergencies: results of a national assessment. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2005;Suppl:S68-S74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. State of Colorado. The Report of Governor Bill Owen's Columbine Review Commission. May 2001. http://www.state.co.us/columbine/Columbine_20Report_WEB.pdf. Accessed August 7, 2013.Google Scholar
12. Callaway, D, Smith, R, Shapiro, G, Cain, J, McKay, S, Mabry, R. The committee for tactical emergency care (C-TECC): evolution and application of TCCC guidelines to civilian high threat medicine. J Spec Ops Med. 2011;11(3):95-100.Google Scholar
13. Jacobs, L, McSwain, N, Rotondo, M, et al. Improving survival from active shooter events: the Hartford Consensus. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74(6):1399-1400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. United States Fire Association. Fire/EMS Department Operational Considerations for Active Shooter and Mass Casualty Incidents. September 2013. http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/active_shooter_guide.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2013.Google Scholar