We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Multiple casualty incidents (MCI) are infrequent events for medical systems. This renders audit and quality improvement of the medical responses difficult. Quality tools and use of such tools for improvement is necessary to ensure that the design of medical systems facilitates the best possible response to MCI.
Objective:
To describe the utility of incident reporting as a quality monitoring and improvement tool during the deployment of medical teams for mass gatherings and multiple casualty incidents.
Methods:
Voluntary and confidential reporting of incidents was provided by members of the disaster medical response teams during the period of disaster medical team deployment for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Qualitative evaluations were conducted of reported incidents. The main outcome measures included the nature of incident and associated contributing factors, minimization factors, harm potential, and comparison with the post-deployment, cold debriefings.
Results:
A total of 53 incidents were reported. Management-based decisions, poor or non-existent protocols, and equipment and communicationrelated issues were the principal contributing factors. Eighty nine percent of the incidents were considered preventable. A potential for harm to patients and/or team members was documented in 58% of reports, of which 76% were likely to cause at least significant harm. Of equipment incidents, personal protective equipment (33%), medical equipment (27%), provision of equipment (22%), and communication equipment (17%) predominated. Personal protective equipment (50%) was reported as the most frequent occupational health and safety incident followed by fatigue (25%). Predeployment planning was the most important factor for future incident impact minimization.
Conclusions:
Incident monitoring was efficacious as a quality tool in identifying incident contributing factors. Incident monitoring allowed for greater systems evaluation. Further evaluation of this quality tool within different disaster settings is required.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.