Learning from terrorist mass casualty incidents: a global survey.

BACKGROUND: Reports published directly after terrorist mass casualty incidents frequently fail to capture difficulties that may have been encountered. An anonymised consensus-based platform may enable discussion and collaboration on the challenges faced. Our aim was to identify where to focus improvement for future responses. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study by email of clinicians' experiences of leading during terrorist mass casualty incidents. An initial survey identified features that worked well, or failed to, during terrorist mass casualty incidents plus ongoing challenges and changes that were implemented as a result. A follow-up, quantitative survey measured agreement between responses within each of the themes using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Thirty-three participants responded from 22 hospitals that had received casualties from a terrorist incident, representing 17 cities in low-middle, middle and high income countries. The first survey identified themes of sufficient (sometimes abundant) human resource, although coordination of staff was a challenge. Difficulties highlighted were communication, security, and management of blast injuries. The most frequently implemented changes were education on specific injuries, revising future plans and preparatory exercises. Persisting challenges were lack of time allocated to training and psychological well-being. The follow-up survey recorded highest agreement amongst correspondents on the need for re-triage at hospital (90% agreement), coordination roles (85% agreement), flexibility (100% agreement), and large-scale exercises (95% agreement). CONCLUSION: This survey collates international experience gained from clinicians managing terrorist mass casualty incidents. The organisation of human response, rather than consumption of physical supplies, emerged as the main finding. NHSH Clinical Effectiveness Unit project registration number: 2020/21-036.

Acute pain assessments and records: a pilot study of digital transformation.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Pain assessments are an essential part of evidence-based care and management. Among comparable care providers, there is variation in how nurses document assessments as well as the content in them, and there is a notable associated administrative burden. AIMS: This study evaluated the impact and significance of a new, structured, digitised pain assessment form from quality, safety and efficiency standpoints. METHODS: Samples of pain assessments were examined at three consecutive stages: first, the pre-existing form was used, then the new structured form was introduced and, finally, the structured form was taken away and nurses went back to completing the original form. Assessments were scored by two clinical analysts against 18 clinically defined pain-related characteristics and factors. The time taken to extract and interpret the assessments was also recorded. Statistically significant changes were assessed using Welch's t-tests and Fisher's exact tests. FINDINGS: There was a significant improvement in data quality using the new structured form compared with the pre-existing template, including an increase in the capture of five safety-related variables. Less time was needed to extract and interpret data with the new form. CONCLUSION: Intelligent structured forms are highly effective for documenting pain assessments, and offer notable benefits in quality, safety, and efficiency.