During a disaster, victims with varied morbidities are located at incident sites, while healthcare facilities with varied healthcare resources are distributed elsewhere. Transportation serves an essential equilibrating role: it helps balance the patients' need for care with the supply of care. Studying the special case of New York City, this article sets out the healthcare transportation components as: (1) incident morbidity; (2) transportation assets; and (3) healthcare capacity. The relationship between these three components raises an assignment problem: the management of healthcare transportation within a dynamic and partly unpredictable incident-transportation-healthcare nexus, under urban disruption. While the routine dispatch problem can be tackled through better geographic allocation software and technical algorithms, the disaster assignment problem must be confronted through real-time, mutual adjustment between institutions. This article outlines institutional alternatives for managing the assignment problem and calls for further research on the merits of alternative institutional models.

Evidence is defined as data on which a judgment or conclusion may be based. In the early 1990s, medical clinicians pioneered evidence-based decision-making. The discipline emerged as the use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine required the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available, external clinical evidence from systematic research and the patient's unique values and circumstances. In this context, evidence acquired a hierarchy of strength based upon the method of data acquisition.

Subsequently, evidence-based decision-making expanded throughout the allied health field. In public health, and particularly for populations in crisis, three major data-gathering tools now dominate: (1) rapid health assessments; (2) population based surveys; and (3) disease surveillance. Unfortunately, the strength of evidence obtained by these tools is not easily measured by the grading scales of evidence-based medicine. This is complicated by the many purposes for which evidence can be applied in public health—strategic decision-making, program implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Different applications have different requirements for strength of evidence as well as different time frames for decision-making. Given the challenges of integrating data from multiple sources that are collected by different methods, public health experts have defined best available evidence as the use of all available sources used to provide relevant inputs for decision-making.

Recognized limitations to data in disaster management have led to dozens of initiatives to strengthen data gathering and decision-making during disasters. These initiatives are complicated by fundamental problems of definitions of terms, ambiguity of concepts, lack of standardization in methods of data collection, and inadequate attempts to strengthen the analytic capability of field organizations. Cross-cutting issues in needs assessment, coordination, and evaluation illustrate additional recurring challenges in dealing with evidence in humanitarian assistance. These challenges include lack of agency expertise, dyscoordination at the field level, inappropriate reliance on indicators that measure process rather than outcome, flawed scientific inference, and erosion of the concept of minimum standards.

Decision-making in disaster management currently places a premium on expert or eminence-based decisions. By contrast, scientific advances in disaster medicine call for evidence-based decisions whose strength of evidence is established by the methods of data acquisition. At present, disaster relief operations may be data driven, but that does not mean that they are soundly evidence-based.

Options for strengthening evidence-based activities include rigorously adhering to evidenced-based interventions, using evidence-based tools to identify new approaches to problems of concern, studying model programs as well as failed ones to identify approaches that deserve replication, and improving standards for evidence of effectiveness in disaster science and services.

The concept of protecting civilians in armed conflict is enshrined in international humanitarian law and widely acknowledged in humanitarian norms. Making this concept operational in humanitarian service delivery is a challenge. Yet, there are many ways in which humanitarian workers could learn from local people about underlying tensions in their community and with these new insights adjust service delivery accordingly.

The 2009 WG developed a qualitative verbal tool that could be used by humanitarian field staff to assist them in understanding issues of civilian protection from the local perspective. The attributes and uses of this tool are described in detail in this WG report. The fundamental aim of this tool is to enhance the capacity of humanitarian workers in their daily work to observe markers of activity and behavior and to inquire and listen from local people about what these markers might or might not mean. The WG emphasized the needs for confidentiality, focus on service delivery (not legal or advocacy work), and iterative routine integration of information gained into field team deliberations. The proposed tool is offered as a possible pilot step towards improving humanitarian understanding and response to local civilian protection needs.

Sulfur mustard is a member of the vesicant class of chemical warfare agents that causes blistering to the skin and mucous membranes. There is no specific antidote, and treatment consists of systematically alleviating symptoms. Historically, sulfur mustard was used extensively in inter-governmental conflicts within the trenches of Belgium and France during World War I and during the Iran-Iraq conflict. Longitudinal studies of exposed victims show that sulfur mustard causes long-term effects leading to high morbidity. Given that only a small amount of sulfur mustard is necessary to potentially cause an enormous number of casualties, disaster-planning protocol necessitates the education and training of first-line healthcare responders in the recognition, decontamination, triage, and treatment of sulfur mustard-exposed victims in a large-scale scenario.

Recently, emphasis has been placed on improving and expanding research in disaster response and the treatment of disaster-stricken populations. However, research in these settings presents unique ethical challenges with which the scientific and biomedical ethics communities continue to struggle. At the core of the controversy is the question of how best to balance the critical need for research with the equally important obligation to respect and protect the interests of research participants within the unique stress of a disaster. This concern stems from the potential of increased vulnerability of individuals stricken by disaster over and above their usual vulnerability to risk and exploitation as research subjects. Ethical principles that must be considered in these situations are the same as those that are important when conducting any human research: respect for persons, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. This paper explores the ethical challenges that accompany inadequate resources and personnel, the potential vulnerability of research participants, the dual role of physician-researcher, and the importance of the public's perception and trust are explored. It then proposes a number of potential avenues through which to conduct ethically justifiable research that could answer many of the pressing questions in disaster medicine and response.

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.

When an infectious pandemic occurs in the United States, emergency care providers (ECPs) will be on the frontlines caring for infected, potentially infected, and non-infected patients. Logistically, the current emergency care system is not ready for a pandemic, but are the providers ethically ready? Some of the most difficult and challenging issues that will be raised during a pandemic will be ethical in nature. An ECP likely will be confronted with ethical values and value conflicts underlying restriction of liberty, duty to care, and resource allocation.

This report summarizes the ethical concerns and challenges that ECPs face during an infectious pandemic, and raises ethical questions that may arise related to the role of an ECP as a healthcare provider and stakeholder.

Contaminated mass fatalities following the release of chemical, biological, or radiological agents pose a potential major health hazard. A United Kingdom government investigation has identified a number of areas of risk. This paper presents an outline of the findings of the study and describes specific pathways for the management of contaminated and non-contaminated fatalities. Factors determining the choice between cremation and burial are discussed. Effective decontamination remains a neglected area of study for both fatalities and casualties.