Background: We describe the hospital system response to the Interstate 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis into the Mississippi River on August 1, 2007, which resulted in 13 deaths and 127 injuries. Comparative analysis of response activities at the 3 hospitals that received critical or serious casualties is provided.

Methods: First-hand experiences of hospital physicians, issues identified in after-action reports, injury severity scores, and other relevant patient data were collected from the 3 hospitals that received seriously injured patients, including the closest hospitals to the collapse on each side of the river.

Results/Discussion: Injuries were consistent with major acceleration/deceleration force injuries. The most critical patients arrived first at each hospital, suggesting appropriate prehospital triage. Capacity of the health care system was not overwhelmed and the involved hospitals generally reported an overresponse by staff. Communication and patient tracking problems occurred at all of the hospitals. Situational awareness was limited due to the scope of structural collapse and incomplete information from the scene.

Conclusions: Hospitals were generally satisfied with their surge capacity and incident management plan activation. Issues such as communications, patient tracking, and staff overreporting that have been identified in past incidents also were problematic in this event. Hospitals will need to address deficiencies and build on successful actions to cope with future, potentially larger incidents. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S11–S16)

Background: The Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis collapsed into the Mississippi River on August 1, 2007, killing 13 people and injuring 127.

Methods: This article describes the emergency medical services response to this incident.

Results/Discussion: Complexities of the event included difficult patient access, multiple sectors of operation, and multiple mutual-aid agencies. Patient evacuation and transportation was rapid, with the collapse zone cleared of victims 95 minutes after the initial 9-1-1 call. A common regional emergency medical service incident management plan that was exercised was critical to the success of the response.

Conclusions: Communication and patient tracking difficulties could be improved in future responses. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S17–S24)

Mass casualty triage is a critical skill. Although many systems exist to guide providers in making triage decisions, there is little scientific evidence available to demonstrate that any of the available systems have been validated. Furthermore, in the United States there is little consistency from one jurisdiction to the next in the application of mass casualty triage methodology. There are no nationally agreed upon categories or color designations. This review reports on a consensus committee process used to evaluate and compare commonly used triage systems, and to develop a proposed national mass casualty triage guideline. The proposed guideline, entitled SALT (sort, assess, life-saving interventions, treatment and/or transport) triage, was developed based on the best available science and consensus opinion. It incorporates aspects from all of the existing triage systems to create a single overarching guide for unifying the mass casualty triage process across the United States. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S25–S34)

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)

In many countries, traditional medical planning for disasters developed largely in response to battlefield and multiple casualty incidents, generally involving corporal injuries. The mass evacuation of a metropolitan population in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina evolved into life-and-death triage scenarios involving thousands of patients with nontraumatic illnesses and special medical needs. Although unprecedented in the United States, triage management needs for this disaster were similar to other large-scale public health emergencies, both natural and human-generated, that occurred globally in the past half-century. The need for alternative triage-management processes similar to the methodologies of other global mass public health emergencies is illustrated through the experience of disaster medical assistance teams in the first 3 days following Katrina's landfall. The immediate establishment of disaster-specific, consensus-based, public health emergency–related triage protocols—developed with ethical and legal expertise and a renewed focus on multidimensional, multifactorial matrix decision-making processes—is strongly recommended. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S40–S44)

Background: In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage to parts of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, causing many people, including vulnerable older adults, to evacuate to safe surroundings. Approximately 23,000 evacuees—many of them 65 years old or older, frail, and lacking family to advocate for their care—arrived at the Reliant Astrodome Complex in Houston, Texas. There was no method for assessing the immediate and long-term needs of this vulnerable population.

Methods: A 13-item rapid needs assessment tool was piloted on 228 evacuees 65 years old and older by the Seniors Without Families Team (SWiFT), to test the feasibility of triaging vulnerable older adults with medical and mental health needs, financial needs, and/or social needs.

Results: The average age of the individuals triaged was 66.1 ± 12.72 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) years. Of these, 68% were triaged for medical and or mental health needs, 18% were triaged for financial assistance, and 4% were triaged for social assistance. More than half of the SWiFT-triaged older adults reported having hypertension.

Conclusions: The SWiFT tool is a feasible approach for triaging vulnerable older adults and provides a rapid determination of the level of need or assistance necessary for vulnerable older people during disasters. The tool was only piloted, thus further testing to determine reliability and validity is necessary. Potentially important implications for using such a tool and suggestions for preparing for and responding to disaster situations in which vulnerable older adults are involved are provided. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S45–S50)

Facility-based health care personnel often lack emergency management training and experience, making it a challenge to efficiently assess evolving incidents and rapidly mobilize appropriate resources. We propose the CO-S-TR model, a simple conceptual tool for hospital incident command personnel to prioritize initial incident actions to adequately address key components of surge capacity. There are 3 major categories in the tool, each with 4 subelements. “CO” stands for command, control, communications, and coordination and ensures that an incident management structure is implemented. “S” considers the logistical requirements for staff, stuff, space, and special (event-specific) considerations. “TR” comprises tracking, triage, treatment, and transportation: basic patient care and patient movement functions. This comprehensive yet simple approach is designed to be implemented in the immediate aftermath of an incident, and complements the incident command system by aiding effective incident assessment and surge capacity responses at the health care facility level. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2(Suppl 1):S51–S57)