Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has dramatically changed the epidemiology of several diseases. Much evidence on this has been published in the pandemic phase. In addition, many studies have shown that phenomena such as stress, substance abuse, and burnout increased in the general population during the lockdown. Unfortunately, few studies analyze the post-pandemic phase.

The study aimed to evaluate the trend of broad social problems, such as a diagnosis by the emergency department (ED), in the post-pandemic phase in the Lombardy (Italy) region.

The study is a retrospective observational cohort study. All admissions to emergency rooms in the Lombardy region registered in the Emergency Urgency OnLine (EUOL) portal made from January through June 2019 were analyzed, having as main causes: psychiatric disorders, self-harm, substance abuse, social disadvantage, and violence. All accesses in emergency rooms in the Lombardy region registered in the EUOL portal made from January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019 were analyzed and compared with the same period in 2022.

The study recorded an increase in the likelihood of events of self-harm (OR = 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8-2.6; P <.0001), substance abuse (OR = 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3; P <.0001), violence by others (OR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4; P <.0001), and social disadvantage (OR = 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; P = .0045). The events are more concentrated in suburban areas (OR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4; P <.001).

The increase in diagnoses of these social problems in the ED is only the culmination of a phenomenon that hides an underlying rise in social illness. In the post-COVID-19 phase, there is a need to invest in community care and social illness prevention policies.

It is not known what constitutes the optimal emergency management system, nor is there a consensus on how effectiveness and efficiency in emergency response should be measured or evaluated. Literature on the role and tasks of commanders in the prehospital emergency services in the setting of mass-casualty incidents has not been summarized and published.

This comprehensive literature review addresses some of the needs for future research in emergency management through three research questions: (1) What are the basic assumptions underlying incident command systems (ICSs)? (2) What are the tasks of ambulance and medical commanders in the field? And (3) How can field commanders’ performances be measured and assessed?

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center, Current Controlled Trials, and PROSPERO covering January 1, 1990 through March 1, 2014 was conducted. Reference lists of included literature were hand searched. Included papers were analyzed using Framework synthesis.

The literature search identified 6,049 unique records, of which, 76 articles and books where included in qualitative synthesis. Most ICSs are described commonly as hierarchical, bureaucratic, and based on military principles. These assumptions are contested strongly, as is the applicability of such systems. Linking of the chains of command in cooperating agencies is a basic difficulty. Incident command systems are flexible in the sense that the organization may be expanded as needed. Commanders may command by direction, by planning, or by influence. Commanders’ tasks may be summarized as: conducting scene assessment, developing an action plan, distributing resources, monitoring operations, and making decisions. There is considerable variation between authors in nomenclature and what tasks are included or highlighted. There are no widely acknowledged measurement tools of commanders’ performances, though several performance indicators have been suggested.

The competence and experience of the commanders, upon which an efficient ICS has to rely, cannot be compensated significantly by plans and procedures, or even by guidance from superior organizational elements such as coordination centers. This study finds that neither a certain system or structure, or a specific set of plans, are better than others, nor can it conclude what system prerequisites are necessary or sufficient for efficient incident management. Commanders need to be sure about their authority, responsibility, and the functional demands posed upon them.

RimstadR, BrautGS. Literature Review on Medical Incident Command. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(2):1-11.

Tissue transplantation is an important adjunct to modern medical care and is used daily to save or improve patient lives. Tissue allografts include bone, tendon, corneas, heart valves and others. Increasing utilization may lead to tissue shortages, and tissue procurement organizations continue to explore ways to expand the cadaveric donor pool. Currently more than half of all deaths occur outside the acute care setting.

Many who suffer prehospital deaths might be eligible for non-organ tissue donation.

A retrospective review of electronic prehospital medical records was conducted from May 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009. All prehospital deaths were included irrespective of cause. Once identified, additional medical history was obtained from prehospital, inpatient, and emergency department records. Age, medical history, and time of death were compared to exclusion criteria for four tissue procurement organizations (MTF, LifeNet, LifeCell, EyeBank). After analysis, percentages of eligible donors were calculated.

Over 50,000 prehospital records were reviewed; 432 subjects died in the field and were eligible for analysis. Ages ranged from four to 103 years of age; the average was 68.3 (SD = 20.1) years. After exclusion for age, medical conditions, and time of death, 185 unique patients (42.8%) were eligible for donation to at least one of the four tissue procurement organizations (range 11.6%-34.3%).

After prehospital death, many individuals may be eligible for tissue donation. These findings suggest that future prospective studies exploring tissue donation after prehospital death are indicated. These studies should aim to clarify eligibility criteria, create protocols and infrastructure, and explore the ethical implications of expanding tissue donation to include this population.

ShiroffAM, GaleSC, MerlinMA, CrystalJS, LingerM, ShahAD, BeaumontE, LustigerE, TabakinE, GraciasVH. Enhancing the Tissue Donor Pool through Donation after Death in the Field. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(2):1-4.

We sought to evaluate the performance of the Prehospital Index (PHI), the high-velocity impact (HVI) criterion and emergency medical technician (EMT) judgment for the prehospital triage of injured patients.

The study population included all prehospital trauma patients transported by an emergency medical service to 2 level-I trauma centres for adults. All prehospital run sheets were linked to trauma registry data. The main outcome was severe trauma, defined as death within 72 hours, admission to the intensive care unit within 24 hours or an Injury Severity Score greater than 15. We assessed sensitivity, specificity and rates of overtriage.

Of 16 805 patients in the study population, 1113 (6.62%) had severe trauma. The combination of all 3 triage criteria (PHI score ≥ 4, HVI presence and EMT judgment) performed best for identifying patients with severe trauma, with a sensitivity of 74.2% but with an overtriage rate of 85.1%. Alone, EMT judgment had the highest sensitivity and a PHI score of 4 or greater had the lowest rate of overtriage.

Although the combination of PHI score, HVI presence and EMT judgment offers the highest sensitivity for the identification of patients that could benefit from direct transport to a level-I trauma centre, overall sensitivity remains low and overtriage is high. More research is required to improve prehospital triage.

We sought to assess the knowledge of, use of and barriers to the use of personal protective equipment for airway management among emergency medical technicians (EMTs) during and since the 2003 Canadian outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).

Using a cross-sectional survey, EMTs in Toronto, Ont., were surveyed 1 year after the SARS outbreak during mandatory training on the use of personal protective equipment in airway management during the outbreak and just before taking the survey. Practices that were addressed reflected government directives on the use of this equipment. Main outcome measures included the frequency of personal protective equipment use and, as applicable, why particular items were not always used.

The response rate was 67.3% (n = 230). During the SARS outbreak, an N95-type particulate respirator was reported to be always used by 91.5% of respondents. Conversely, 72.9% of the respondents reported that they never used the open face hood. Equipment availability and vision impairment were often cited as impediments to personal protective equipment use. In nonoutbreak conditions, only the antimicrobial airway filter was most often reported to be always used (52.0%), while other items were used at an intermediate frequency. The most common reason for not always donning equipment was that paramedics deemed it unnecessary for the situation.

Personal protective equipment is not consistently employed as per medical directives. Reasons given for nonuse included nonavailability, judgment of nonnecessity or technical difficulties. There are important public health implications of noncompliance.