UK healthcare staff experiences and perceptions of a mass casualty terrorist incident response: a mixed-methods study.
Emergency Medicine Journal · 2020-11-11 · Qualitative study
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: System learning from major incidents is a crucial element of improving preparedness for response to any future incidents. Sharing good practice and limitations stimulates further actions to improve preparedness and prevents duplicating mistakes. METHODS: This convergent parallel mixed methods study comprises data from responses to an online survey and individual interviews with healthcare staff who took part in the responses to three terrorist incidents in the UK in 2017 (Westminster Bridge attack, Manchester Arena Bombing and London Bridge attack) to understand limitations in the response and share good practices. RESULTS: The dedication of NHS staff, staff availability and effective team work were the most frequently mentioned enabling factors in the response. Effective coordination between teams and a functional major incident plan facilitated an effective response. Rapid access to blood products, by positioning the blood bank in the ED, treating children and parents together and sharing resources between trauma centres were recognised as very effective innovative practices. Recent health emergency preparedness exercises (HEPEs) were valued for preparing both Trusts and individual staff for the response. Challenges included communication between ambulance services and hospitals, difficulties with patient identification and tracking and managing the return to 'normal' work patterns post event. Lack of immediately available clinical protocols to deal with blast injuries was the most commonly mentioned clinical issue. The need for psychosocial support for responding and supporting staff was identified. DISCUSSION: Between-agencies communication and information sharing appear as the most common recurring problems in mass casualty incidents (MCIs). Recent HEPEs, which allowed teams, interdisciplinary groups, and different agencies to practice responding to similar simulated incidents, were important and informed actions during the real response. Immediate and delayed psychosocial support should be in place for healthcare staff responding to MCIs.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Blood products · Clinician perspective · Communication & handover · Fluids & blood · Terror attacks & active shooter events · Interagency collaboration
Related articles
- Use of whole blood deployment programs for mass casualty incidents: South Texas experience in regional response and preparedness. (J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2022)
- Multi-Victim Assault with a Penetrating Weapon and an Alkaline Agent: Disaster Report. (Prehosp Disaster Med, 2026)
- Reducing the therapeutic vacuum: a qualitative study learning from experiences of care delivery during terror attacks in the UK over the past 20 years. (BMJ Open, 2026)
- Examining the experiences of prehospital emergency workers in emergency medical intervention during terrorist attacks: a qualitative study. (Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2025)
- Tactical Emergency Medical Services in Copenhagen, Denmark: A mixed methods design study introducing a new concept. (Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2025)
- Medical Coordination Rescue Members' and Ambulance Nurses' Perspectives on a New Model for Mass Casualty and Disaster Management and a Novel Terror Attack Mitigation Approach in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Study. (Prehosp Disaster Med, 2021)