Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Base de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Emerg Med J ; 38(10): 765-768, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34039644

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: A major incident is any emergency requiring special arrangements by the emergency services. All hospitals are required by law to keep a major incident plan (MIP) detailing the response to such events. In 2006 and 2019, we assessed the preparedness and knowledge of key individuals in hospitals across England and found a substantial gap in responding to the MIP. In this report, we compare responses from doctors at major trauma centres (MTCs) and other hospitals (non-MTCs). METHODS: We identified trusts in England that received over 30 000 patients through the ED in the fourth quarter of 2016/2017. We contacted the on-call anaesthetic, emergency, general surgery and trauma and orthopaedic registrar at each location and asked three questions assessing their confidence in using their hospital's MIP: (1) Have you read your hospital's MIP? (2) Do you know where you can access your hospital's MIP guidelines? (3) Do you know what role you would play if an MIP came into effect while you are on call?We compared data from MTCs and non-MTCs using multinomial mixed proportional odds models. RESULTS: There was a modest difference between responses from individuals at MTCs and non-MTCs for question 2 (OR=2.43, CI=1.03 to 5.73, p=0.04) but no evidence of a difference between question 1 (OR=1.41, CI=0.55 to 3.63, p=0.47) and question 3 (OR=1.78, CI=0.86 to 3.69, p=0.12). Emergency medicine and anaesthetic registrars showed significantly higher preparedness and knowledge across all domains. No evidence of a systematic difference in specialty response by MTC or otherwise was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Confidence in using MIPs among specialty registrars in England remains low. Doctors at MTCs tended to be better prepared and more knowledgeable, but this effect was only marginally significant. We make several recommendations to improve education on major incidents.


Asunto(s)
Defensa Civil/métodos , Hospitales/normas , Incidentes con Víctimas en Masa/prevención & control , Centros Traumatológicos/normas , Defensa Civil/tendencias , Hospitales/tendencias , Humanos , Incidentes con Víctimas en Masa/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Centros Traumatológicos/organización & administración , Centros Traumatológicos/tendencias
2.
Emerg Med J ; 36(12): 762-764, 2019 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31405993

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: A major incident is any emergency that requires special arrangements by the emergency services and generally involves a large number of people. Recent such events in England have included the Manchester Arena bombing and the Grenfell Tower disaster. Hospitals are required by law to keep a major incident plan (MIP) outlining the response to such an event. In a survey conducted in 2006 we found a substantial knowledge gap among key individuals that would be expected to respond to the enactment of an MIP. We set out to repeat this survey study and assess any improvement since our original report. METHODS: We identified NHS trusts in England that received more than 30 000 patients through the emergency department in the fourth quarter of the 2016/2017 period. We contacted the on-call anaesthetic, emergency, general surgery, and trauma and orthopaedic registrar at each location and asked each individual to answer a short verbal survey assessing their confidence in using their hospital's MIP. RESULTS: Of those eligible for the study, 62% were able to be contacted and consented to the study. In total 50% of respondents had read all or part of their hospital's MIP, 46.8% were confident that they knew where their plan was stored, and 36% knew the role they would play if a plan came into effect. These results show less confidence among middle-grade doctors compared with 2006. CONCLUSIONS: Confidence in using MIPs among specialty registrars in England is still low. In light of this, we make a number of recommendations designed to improve the education of hospital doctors in reacting to major incidents.


Asunto(s)
Planificación en Desastres/organización & administración , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/organización & administración , Incidentes con Víctimas en Masa/prevención & control , Cuerpo Médico de Hospitales/organización & administración , Planificación en Desastres/historia , Urgencias Médicas/historia , Inglaterra , Historia del Siglo XXI , Humanos , Incidentes con Víctimas en Masa/historia , Cuerpo Médico de Hospitales/estadística & datos numéricos , Médicos/organización & administración , Médicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios/estadística & datos numéricos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA