Distribution of casualties in a mass-casualty incident with three local hospitals in the periphery of a densely populated area: lessons learned from the medical management of a terrorist attack.
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2007-01-01 · Observational study
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A mass-casualty incident (MCI) can occur in the periphery of a densely populated area, away from a metropolitan area. In such circumstances, the medical management of the casualties is expected to be difficult because the nearest hospital and the emergency medical services (EMS), only can offer limited resources. When coping with these types of events (i.e., limited medical capability in the nearby medical facilities), a quick response time and rational triage can have a great impact on the outcome of the victims. The objective of this study was to identify the lessons learned from the medical response to a terrorist attack that occurred on 05 December 2005, in Netanya, a small Israeli city. METHODS: Data were collected during and after the event from formal debriefings and from patient files. The data were processed using descriptive statistics and compared to those from previous events. The event is described according to Disastrous Incidents Systematic Analysis Through Components, Interactions, Results (DISAST-CIR) methodology. RESULTS: Four victims and the terrorist died as a result of this suicide bombing. A total of 131 patients were evacuated (by EMS or self-evacuation) to three nearby hospitals. Due to the proximity of the event to the ambulance dispatch station, the EMS response was quick. The first evacuation took place only three minutes after the explosion. Non-urgent patients were diverted to two close-circle hospitals, allowing the nearest hospital to treat urgent patients and to receive the majority of self-evacuated patients. The nearest hospital continued to receive patients for >6 hours after the explosion, 57 of them (78%) were self-evacuated. CONCLUSION: The distribution of casualties from the scene plays a vital role in the management of a MCI that occurs in the outskirts of a densely populated area. Non-urgent patients should be referred to a hospital close to the scene of the event, but not the closest hospital. The nearest hospital should be prepared to treat urgent casualties, as well as a large number of self-evacuated patients.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Terror attacks & active shooter events · Interagency collaboration · Time intervals
Related articles
- Primary triage, evacuation priorities, and rapid primary distribution between adjacent hospitals--lessons learned from a suicide bomber attack in downtown Tel-Aviv. (Prehosp Disaster Med, 2008)
- Managing a Mega Mass Casualty Event by a Civilian Emergency Medical Services Agency: Lessons From the First Day of the 2023 Hamas-Israel War. (Int J Public Health, 2024)
- [Terrorist attack training exercise-What can be learned? : Baden-Württemberg counterterrorism exercise (BWTEX)]. (Anaesthesist, 2020)
- Significance of a Level-2, "selective, secondary evacuation" hospital during a peripheral town terrorist attack. (Prehosp Disaster Med, 2007)
- The Field's mass shooting: emergency medical services response. (Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2023)
- The initial response to the Boston marathon bombing: lessons learned to prepare for the next disaster. (Ann Surg, 2014)