Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:52:11.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of a Belgian Prediction Model for Patient Encounters at Football Mass Gatherings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2021

Kris Spaepen Open the ORCID record for Kris Spaepen [Opens in a new window] ,
Door Lauwaert ,
Leonard Kaufman ,
Winne AP Haenen  and
Ives Hubloue
Kris Spaepen*
Affiliation:
Research Group on Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Door Lauwaert
Affiliation:
Research Group on Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Leonard Kaufman
Affiliation:
Research Group on Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Winne AP Haenen
Affiliation:
Crisis Management at Federal Public Health Service, Brussels, Belgium
Ives Hubloue
Affiliation:
Research Group on Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
*
Correspondence: Kris Spaepen, RN MSc EMDM Research Group on Emergency and Disaster Medicine Vrije Universiteit Brussel Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

To validate the Belgian Plan Risk Manifestations (PRIMA) model, actual patient presentation rates (PPRs) from Belgium’s largest football stadium were compared with predictions provided by existing models and the Belgian PRIMA model.

Methods:

Actual patient presentations gathered from 41 football games (2010-2019) played at the King Baudouin Stadium (Brussels, Belgium) were compared with predictions by existing models and the PRIMA model. All attendees who sought medical help from in-event health services (IEHS) in the stadium or called 1-1-2 within the closed perimeter around the stadium were included. Data were analyzed by ANOVA, Pearson correlation tests, and Wilcoxon singed-rank test.

Results:

A total of 1,630,549 people attended the matches, with 626 people needing first aid. Both the PRIMA and the Hartman model over-estimated the number of patient encounters for each occasion. The Arbon model under-estimated patient encounters for 9.75% (95% CI, 0.49-19.01) of the events. When comparing deviations in predictions between the PRIMA model to the other models, there was a significant difference in the mean deviation (Arbon: Z = −5.566, P <.001, r = −.61; Hartman: Z = −4.245, P <.001, r = .47).

Conclusion:

When comparing the predicted patient encounters, only the Arbon model under-predicted patient presentations, but the Hartman and the PRIMA models consistently over-predicted. Because of continuous over-prediction, the PRIMA model showed significant differences in mean deviation of predicted PPR. The results of this study suggest that the PRIMA model can be used during planning for domestic and international football matches played at the King Baudouin Stadium, but more data and further research are needed.

Keywords

disaster planning and responseEmergency Medical Servicesmass gatheringpatient presentationsprediction
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , December 2021 , pp. 724 - 729
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine

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

World Health Organization. Communicable disease alert and response for mass gatherings. Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response. Technical Workshop; Geneva, Switzerland: 2008. http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_HSE_EPR_2008_8c.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2014.Google Scholar
Arbon, P. Mass-gathering medicine: a review of the evidence and future directions for research. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22(2):131–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karami, M, Doosti-Irani, A, Ardalan, A, et al. Public health threats in mass gatherings: a systematic review. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2019;13(5-6):1035–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhangu, A, Agar, C, Pickard, L, Leary, A. The Villa Park experience: crowd consultations at an English Premiership football stadium, season 2007-2008. Emerg Med J. 2010;27(6):424–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbert-Lampen, U, Leistner, D, Greven, S, et al. Cardiovascular events during World Cup Soccer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(5):475–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkup, W. A matter of life and death: population mortality and football results. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(6):429–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arbon, P, Bridgewater, FHG, Smith, C. Mass gathering medicine: a predictive model for patient presentation and transport rates. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2001;16(3):150–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartman, N, Williamson, A, Sojka, B, et al. Predicting resource use at mass gatherings using a simplified stratification scoring model. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;27(3):337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaepen, K, Haenen, W, Hubloue, I. The development of PRIMA - a Belgian predictive model for patient presentation rates. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020;35(5):554–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaepen, K, Haenen, WAP, Kaufman, L, Beens, K, Vandekerckhove, P, Hubloue, I. Validation of a Belgian prediction model for patient encounters at music mass gatherings. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020;35(5):561–566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, WP, Wessels, V, Naicker, D, Leuenberger, E, Fuhri, P, Wallis, LA. Development of a mass-gathering medical resource matrix for a developing world scenario. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(6):547–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, A, Turris, SA, Bowles, R, et al. Mass-gathering health research foundational theory: part 1 - population models for mass gatherings. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(6):648–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, JL. Risk and risk assessment in health emergency management. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2005;20(3):143–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leary, A, Greenwood, P, Hedley, B, Agnew, J, Thompson, D, Punshon, G. An analysis of use of crowd medical services at an English football league club. Int Emerg Nurs. 2008;16(3):193–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allgaier, RL, Shaafi-Kabiri, N, Romney, CA, et al. Use of predictive modeling to plan for special event medical care during mass gathering events. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2019;13(5-6):874–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morimura, N, Katsumi, A, Koido, Y, et al. Analysis of patient load data from the 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2004;19(3):278–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Lorenzo, RA. Mass gathering medicine: a review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1997;12(1):68–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leary, A, Kemp, A, Greenwood, P, et al. Crowd medical services in the English Football League: remodeling the team for the 21st century using a realist approach. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e018619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsten, AM, Seaman, KG, Liu, P, Bissell, RA, Maguire, BJ. Variables influencing medical usage rates, injury patterns, and levels of care for mass gatherings. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003;18(4):334–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranse, J, Hutton, A, Turris, SA, Lund, A. Enhancing the minimum data set for mass-gathering research and evaluation: an integrative literature review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(3):280–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar