Continuity of an essential service during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis of vaccine perceptions and hesitancy in the emergency medical services profession.

During and subsequent to a natural disaster, there is an expectation that certain elements of society will continue to operate with a degree of normalcy. For example, it is expected that emergency medical services will continue to function and remain reliable for the community served. Expectations such as these are based on the presumed reliability of government and the assumption that those responsible for the relevant infrastructure will have made plans to ensure it remains functional and taken steps to mitigate known weaknesses. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a case in point. Specifically, data captured during the pandemic are now the subject of ongoing review and analysis, and the findings from such studies are being used to inform planning and preparedness for the next public health disaster. This particular study was conducted in response to circumstantial evidence indicating that frontline workers in the healthcare profession may share some of the same ambivalence towards transmission mitigation as seen in the general population when confronted with new and emerging communicable diseases. This is a concern, as when medical personnel are either unable or unwilling to take reasonable steps to protect themselves and their patients, it undermines the readiness of the essential service. To explore this situation in greater depth, the study examines the real-time responses from a sample of frontline personnel interviewed during the pandemic. The results indicate that there are a number of opportunities to improve workforce readiness to assure reliable continuity during the next outbreak, epidemic or pandemic.

The Burden of Burns: An Analysis of Public Health Measures.

Accurate analysis of injuries is paramount when allocating resources for prevention, research, education, and legislation. As burn mortality has improved over recent decades, the societal burden of burn injuries has grown ambiguous to the public while a scarcity of investigational funding for survivors has led to a gap in understanding lifelong sequela. We aim to compare national references reporting the incidence of burn injuries in the United States. The American Burn Association Burn Injury Summary Report (ABA-BISR), American Burn Association Fact Sheet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting (WISQARS) database, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics' National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), National Inpatient Sample (NIS), National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), and commercially available claims databases were queried for 2020 or the most recent data available. The BISR estimated 30,135 burn admissions in 2022. The 2016 ABA Fact Sheet reported 486,000 burns presented to US emergency departments (ED). In 2020, CDC's WISQARS database reported 3,529 fatal, and 287,926 non-fatal, burn injuries. The 2020 NEDS reported 438,185 ED visits while the 2020 NIS estimated 103,235 inpatients. The NHAMCS reported 359,000 ED visits for burn injuries in the same period, and an analysis of ICD-10 burn codes demonstrated over 698,555 claims. Our study demonstrates a large variability in the reported incidence of burn injury by the ABA, CDC, national samples, and claims databases. Per our analyses, we estimate that 600,000 individuals annually suffer a burn injury which merits emergent care in the United States.

Development of the national injury resource database (NIRD).

INTRODUCTION: Lack of an accurate, publicly available database of burn/trauma resources creates challenges in providing burn care. In response to this gap, our group developed the National Injury Resource Database (NIRD), a comprehensive database of all US burn centers (BC) and trauma centers (TC) and their capabilities. METHODS: Lists of all national BC and TC were obtained from the American Burn Association (ABA), the American College of Surgeons, and every state department of health. Data was cross-checked and included BC/TC were linked with a 7-digit identification number using the American Hospital Association Quick Search guide. Each center's resources and verification status were validated with electronic or telephonic communications. RESULTS: The final database includes 135 BC and 617 TC, of which 18 are BC-only, 500 are TC-only, and 117 are combined BC/TC. ABA-verified BC (n = 76) are only found in Washington DC and 31 states, and 8 states have no BC. In the last 10 years, a net increase of 7 burn centers was found nationally. The ABA's online BC directory is outdated. CONCLUSIONS: NIRD represents the only up-to-date, comprehensive listing of BC and TC in existence. It categorizes all currently operating BC and TC across myriad classifications of designation and capabilities.

Radiation Injuries.

Radiation-related injuries are rare. Yet the consequences of an event involving a radiation source can be substantial. As with any clinical emergency that rarely occurs, we are typically less prepared to deal with the situation. Compounding the crisis will be the "worried well" population who may believe that they too are contaminated or suffering from radiation poisoning and report to the hospital for evaluation. Identifying and triaging those who are sick or injured, managing the surge of patients, and knowing where resources can be accessed are all essential.

Development of Prepositioned Burn Care-specific Disaster Resources for a Burn Mass Casualty Incident.

Disaster preparedness for a burn mass casualty incident (BMCI) must consider the needs of the first responders and community hospitals, who may be the first to receive those patients. Developing a more comprehensive statewide burn disaster program includes meeting with regional healthcare coalitions (HCCs) to identify gaps in care. Quarterly HCC meetings, which link local hospitals, emergency medical services (EMS) agencies, and other interested parties, are held around the state. We rely on the HCC's regional meetings to serve as a platform for conducting focus group research to identify gaps specific to a BMCI and to inform strategy development. One of the deficiencies identified, particularly in rural areas that infrequently manage burn injuries, was a lack of burn-specific wound care dressings that could support the initial response. Relying on this process, a consensus was created for equipment types and quantities, including a kit for storage. Furthermore, maintenance, supply replacement, and scene delivery processes were developed for these kits that could augment a BMCI response. The feedback from the focus groups reminded us that many systems report having infrequent opportunities to provide care for patients with burn injuries. In addition, several types of burn-specific dressings are expensive. With the infrequent occurrence, EMS agencies and rural hospitals reported that it was doubtful their agency/hospital would have more than a minimal stock of burn injury supplies. Therefore, developing supply caches that can be quickly mobilized and deployed to the impacted area was one of the deficiencies we identified and addressed through this process.

Maladaptive Cognitions in EMS Professionals as a Function of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease pandemic has pro-foundly affected emergency medical services (EMS) profes-sionals, but the emotional impact is unknown. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of North Carolina EMS profes-sionals from April to May 2021. EMS professionals on an ac-tive roster were included. With pandemic-related perceptions, the 15-item Posttraumatic Maladaptive Beliefs Scale (PMBS) was used to quantify the severity of maladaptive cognition. Significant univariate variables were used to create a hier-archical linear regression to assess the potential impact of pandemic-related factors on maladaptive cognition scores. RESULTS: Overall, 811 respondents were included; of those, 33.3% were female, 6.7% were minorities, and 3.2% were Latinx; the mean age was 41.11 ± 12.42 years. Mean scores on the PMBS were 37.12 ± 13.06 and ranged from 15 to 93. PMBS scores were 4.62, 3.57, and 3.99 points higher, respec-tively, in those with increased anxiety, those who trusted their sources of information, and those who reported to work de-spite being symptomatic. Pandemic-specific factors accounted for 10.6% of the variance in PMBS total scores (ΔR2 = 0.106, ΔF[9, 792]; p < .001). Psychopathological factors accounted for an additional 4.7% of the variance in PMBS total scores (ΔR2 = 0.047, ΔF[3, 789]; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Given that 10.6% of the difference in PMBS scores can be explained by pandemic- related factors, maladaptive cognitions in EMS are a considerable concern and could lead to the development of significant psychopathology post-trauma.

Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccination Among EMS Personnel.

INTRODUCTION: Unvaccinated emergency medical services (EMS) personnel are at increased risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and potentially transmitting the virus to their families, coworkers, and patients. Effective vaccines for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus exist; however, vaccination rates among EMS professionals remain largely unknown. Consequently, we sought to document vaccination rates of EMS professionals and identify predictors of vaccination uptake. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of North Carolina EMS professionals after the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available. The survey assessed vaccination status as well as beliefs regarding COVID-19 illness and vaccine effectiveness. Prediction of vaccine uptake was modeled using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 860 EMS professionals completed the survey, of whom 74.7% reported receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. Most respondents believed that COVID-19 is a serious threat to the population, that they are personally at higher risk of infection, that vaccine side effects are outweighed by illness prevention, and the vaccine is safe and effective. Despite this, only 18.7% supported mandatory vaccination for EMS professionals. Statistically significant differences were observed between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness, recall of employer vaccine recommendation, perceived risk of infection, degree of threat to the population, and trust in government to take actions to limit the spread of disease. Unvaccinated respondents cited reasons such as belief in personal health and natural immunity as protectors against infection, concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness, inadequate vaccine knowledge, and lack of an employer mandate for declining the vaccine. Predictors of vaccination included belief in vaccine safety (odds ratio [OR] 5.5, P=<0.001) and effectiveness (OR 4.6, P=<0.001); importance of vaccination to protect patients (OR 15.5, P=<0.001); perceived personal risk of infection (OR 1.8, P=0.04); previous receipt of influenza vaccine (OR 2.5, P=0.003); and sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision about vaccination (OR 2.4, P=0.024). CONCLUSION: In this survey of EMS professionals, over a quarter remained unvaccinated for COVID-19. Given the identified predictors of vaccine acceptance, EMS systems should focus on countering misinformation through employee educational campaigns as well as on developing policies regarding workforce immunization requirements.

Actionable, Revised (v.3), and Amplified American Burn Association Triage Tables for Mass Casualties: A Civilian Defense Guideline.

Burn care remains among the most complex of the time-sensitive treatment interventions in medicine today. An enormous quantity of specialized resources are required to support the critical and complex modalities needed to meet the conventional standard of care for each patient with a critical burn injury. Because of these dependencies, a sudden surge of patients with critical burn injuries requiring immediate and prolonged care following a burn mass casualty incident (BMCI) will place immense stress on healthcare system assets, including supplies, space, and an experienced workforce (staff). Therefore, careful planning to maximize the efficient mobilization and rational use of burn care resources is essential to limit morbidity and mortality following a BMCI. The U.S. burn care profession is represented by the American Burn Association (ABA). This paper has been written by clinical experts and led by the ABA to provide further clarity regarding the capacity of the American healthcare system to absorb a surge of burn-injured patients. Furthermore, this paper intends to offer responders and clinicians evidence-based tools to guide their response and care efforts to maximize burn care capabilities based on realistic assumptions when confronted with a BMCI. This effort also aims to align recommendations in part with those of the Committee on Crisis Standards of Care for the Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Sciences. Their publication guided the work in this report, identified here as "conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care." This paper also includes an update to the burn Triage Tables- Seriously Resource-Strained Situations (v.2).

Disaster Preparedness and Response for the Burn Mass Casualty Incident in the Twenty-first Century.

The effective and efficient coordination of emergent patient care at the point of injury followed by the systematic resource-based triage of casualties are the most critical factors that influence patient outcomes after mass casualty incidents (MCIs). The effectiveness and appropriateness of implemented actions are largely determined by the extent and efficacy of the planning and preparation that occur before the MCI. The goal of this work was to define the essential efforts related to planning, preparation, and execution of acute and subacute medical care for disaster burn casualties. This type of MCI is frequently referred to as a burn MCI."

Relying on the National Mobile Disaster Hospital as a business continuity strategy in the aftermath of a tornado: The Louisville experience.

On 28th April, 2014, a tornado left much of Louisville, MS and the local hospital, Winston Medical Center, in ruin. In the USA, temporary hospital solutions have been used to augment the mainstream healthcare system since the American Civil War. As memories fade, however, the necessary readiness for a temporary hospital also fades, at times leaving a patchwork of resources either underfunded or abandoned. With the creation of the Hospital Preparedness Program, several temporary hospital solutions were created in various states across the USA. In the present case, Mississippi and North Carolina resources were used in Louisville in the aftermath of a direct impact that destroyed the hospital and nursing home. In the hours that followed, after lives were saved and patients safely relocated, a frank assessment confirmed the structural loss of the hospital. Local emergency responders, hospital staff, state and federal representatives all rallied with the aim of saving the community's only hospital. The steps taken in Louisville and the deliberate restoration of these essential services offer a learning opportunity for all involved in healthcare disaster preparedness, response and recovery.

Disaster Planning: Financing a Burn Disaster, Where Do You Turn and What Are Your Options When Your Hospital Has Been Impacted by a Burn Disaster in the United States?

The cost associated with a single burn injured patient can be significant. The American healthcare system functions in part based on traditional market forces which include supply and demand. In addition, there are a variety of payer sources with disparate payment for the same services. Thus, when a group of patients with serious injuries needing complicated care are underinsured or uninsured, or lacks the ability to pay, the financial health of the organization providing the care can be undermined. When a medical disaster with significant numbers of burn injured patients occurs, the financial concerns can be compounded with this singular event. It is critical to be cognizant of the disaster-related financial resources available. Knowing where to turn and what may be available can help assure that the institution caring for this group of high cost patients does not simultaneously take on significant financial risk in the aftermath of the disaster. This article includes national (United States) financial data with respect to burn injury, and focuses on (United States) governmental financial resources during and after a disaster. This review includes identifying and discussing traditional financial support, as well as atypical but established programs where, during a disaster, health care institutions may be eligible for assistance to cover part or all of the associated costs.

North Carolina College of Emergency Physicians' Guidance Document on Emergency Medical Services.

The North Carolina College of Emergency Physicians (NCCEP) Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Committee uses an evidence-based approach in writing its protocols and procedures. The most recent revision of the NCCEP document, which was started in late 2010, lasted for more than 1 year and utilized committee members from across the state. Four meetings were held at locations across North Carolina. In addition, 2 surveys were sent to get input from EMS providers. Since 2010, the document has been updated on an ongoing basis, aligning it with the latest evidence-based medicine.

'An abundance of caution' and Ebola in the US Healthcare System: What is the new normal?

Roosevelt General Hospital (RGH) is a small (24 bed) community hospital based in Portales, New Mexico, USA. RGH serves several towns and communities along the New Mexico/Texas border to include the enlisted and officer population of Cannon US Air Force Base as well as the civilian support and families for air force personnel. The area is also home to multiple retired and discharged military personnel who continue working in various roles as civilian contractors. As the care for the first US diagnosed patient with Ebola played out in neighbouring Texas (October 2014), a patient presented to the RGH clinic with a fever of unknown origin. Initially, there was a misunderstanding between the clinician and the patient regarding a recent international travel history. During the assessment, an ensuing discussion revealed that the patient had been in or near the area where the current West African Ebola outbreak is ongoing approximately 10 days before the onset of his fever. While it was later determined that the patient was not infected with Ebola, the fact that a potentially infected patient had entered the hospital and had been in close contact with visitors and clinicians alike was disturbing to staff and administration. The continued operation of this hospital was and remains critical to the communities served. This story focuses on a local effort to manage a local concern relying on recent and historical emergency planning and preparedness efforts.

Advanced Burn Life Support for Day-to-Day Burn Injury Management and Disaster Preparedness: Stakeholder Experiences and Student Perceptions Following 56 Advanced Burn Life Support Courses.

Educational programs for clinicians managing patients with burn injuries represent a critical aspect of burn disaster preparedness. Managing a disaster, which includes a surge of burn-injured patients, remains one of the more challenging aspects of disaster medicine. During a 6-year period that included the development of a burn surge disaster program for one state, a critical gap was recognized as public presentations were conducted across the state. This gap revealed an acute and greater than anticipated need to include burn care education as an integral part of comprehensive burn surge disaster preparedness. Many hospital and prehospital providers expressed concern with managing even a single, burn-injured patient. While multiple programs were considered, Advanced Burn Life Support (ABLS), a national standardized educational program was selected to help address this need. The curriculum includes initial care for the burn-injured patient as well as an overview of the burn centers role in the disaster preparedness community. After 4 years and 56 classes conducted across the state, a survey was developed including a section that measured the perceptions of those who completed the ABLS educational program. The study specifically examines questions including whether clinicians perceived changes in their burn care knowledge, skills and abilities, and burn disaster preparedness following completion of the program? including whether clinicians.