Medical events during the 2009 Los Angeles County Station Fire: lessons for wildfire EMS planning.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the types of injuries and medical problems encountered by fire department personnel during suppression of large campaign-type wildland fires. Such information could help to plan for response to medical incidents during future wildfires. OBJECTIVE: To describe the injuries and medical problems experienced by firefighters during the 2009 Los Angeles County Station Fire. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of case records of patients treated during the Los Angeles County Station Fire. Data were abstracted from two sources: the incident command medical tracking sheet and prehospital patient care reports (PCRs). RESULTS: The sample included 183 patient contacts, of which PCRs were available for 65. For the remaining 118 patients, data were abstracted from the incident command medical tracking sheet. The most common chief complaint was extremity injury, accounting for 44 patient contacts (24% of all patients), with smoke inhalation second, at 32 patient contacts (17%). Of the 65 patients with PCRs, 31 (52%) were treated with oxygen, 26 (40%) had intravenous (IV) lines started, and 15 (23%) received an IV fluid bolus. Half of the patients were transported to an emergency department (ED); the remainder were treated on scene or self-transported to a non-acute care facility. CONCLUSIONS: Most firefighter injuries and illnesses encountered during the Los Angeles Station Fire were minor. The prevalence of injuries observed should be taken into consideration in creation of protocols and mandatory equipment lists for fireline paramedics. Furthermore, advanced training for paramedics in the diagnosis and treatment of minor medical conditions may be useful.

Improved trauma system multicasualty incident response: comparison of two train crash disasters.

BACKGROUND: Two train crash multicasualty incidents (MCI) occurred in 2005 and 2008 in Los Angeles. A postcrash analysis of the first MCI determined that most victims went to local community hospitals (CHs) with underutilization of trauma centers (TCs), resulting in changes to our disaster plan. To determine whether our trauma system MCI response improved, we analyzed the distribution of patients from the scene to TCs and CHs in the two MCIs. METHODS: Data from the emergency medical services and TC records were interrogated to compare patients triage status, type of transport, and the destination in the 2008 MCI to the 2005 MCI. Clinical data from the 2008 MCI were tabulated to evaluate severity of injuries, need for immediate and delayed operation, need for intensive care unit, and need for specialty surgical services, and appropriate distribution of patients. RESULTS: In 2005, 14 (56%) of the 25 severely injured patients and 75 (71%) of the 106 total patients were transported to four CHs. In 2008, 53 (93%) of 57 of the severely injured patients were transported to TCs and only 34 (35%) of 98 of total patients were transported to nine CHs. In 2008, more TCs were used (8 vs. 5) and more patients were transported by air (34 vs. 2). In 2008, the most severely injured victims were transported to four level I TCs (median injury severity score, 16; range, 1-43; 10 emergent operations) and four level II TCs (median injury severity score, 10; range, 1-22; 4 emergent operations). Only 11 patients were admitted to CHs, and no operations were required. CONCLUSIONS: A trauma system performance improvement program allowed us to significantly improve our response to MCIs with improved utilization of TCs and improved distribution of victims according to injury severity and needs.

Field triage and patient maldistribution in a mass-casualty incident.

INTRODUCTION: Management of mass-casualty incidents should optimize outcomes by appropriate prehospital care, and patient triage to the most capably facilities. The number of patients, the nature of injuries, transportation needs, distances, and hospital capabilities and availabilities are all factors to be considered. Patient maldistributions such as overwhelming individual facilities, or transport to facilities incapable of providing appropriate care should be avoided. This report is a critical view of the application of the START triage nomenclature in the prehospital arena following a train crash in Los Angeles County on 26 January 2005. METHODS: A scheduled debriefing was held with the major fire and emergency medical services responders, Medical Alert Center staff, and hospitals to assess and review the response to the incident. Site visits were made to all of the hospitals involved. Follow-up questions were directed to emergency department staff that were on duty during the day of the incident. RESULTS: The five Level-I Trauma Centers responded to the poll with the capacity to receive a total of 12 "Immediate" patients, 2.4 patients per center, the eight Level-II Trauma Centers responded with capacity to receive 17 "Immediate" patients, two patients per center, while the 25 closest community hospitals offered to accept 75 "Immediate" patients, three patients per hospital. These community hospitals were typically about one-half of the size of the trauma centers (average 287 beds versus 548, average 8.7 operating rooms versus 16.6). Twenty-six patients were transported to a community hospital >15 miles from the scene, while eight closer community hospitals did not receive any patients. CONCLUSIONS: The debriefing summary of this incident concluded that there were no consistently used criteria to decide ultimate destination for "Immediates", and that they were distributed about equally between community hospitals and trauma centers.