Review of National Health Service England's Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response Annual Assurance for 2021-2022.

OBJECTIVE: National Health Service (NHS) England conducts annual assurance of NHS bodies in England's readiness to respond to emergencies using its Core Standards for emergency preparedness, resilience, and response (EPRR). This review assessed whether the first complete EPRR assurance after England's coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic national response was performed successfully. METHODS: The primary outcome of interest was the quantity of information regarding applicable Core Standards held by NHS England at the end of that assurance. Secondary outcomes were variations between the number of applicable Core Standards and information held by NHS bodies about the number of applicable Core Standards. RESULTS: NHS England recorded the correct number of applicable Core Standards for 88 of the 124 NHS trusts in England which provided general hospital accommodation and services in relation to accidents or emergencies. It recorded an incorrect number of standards for 13 trusts and did not record the number of standards for 23 trusts. CONCLUSION: NHS England's EPRR assurance resulted in correct data not being recorded for over a quarter of the above NHS trusts. This review may also be of interest to other state-level bodies that rely on the high-level assurance of their ability to provide health care during emergencies.

Is the Run, Hide, Fight Concept Effective in Improving Hospital Response to Shooting Incidents? A Systematic Review.

The recent rise of active shootings calls for adequate preparation. Currently, the "Run, Hide, Fight" concept is widely accepted and adopted by many hospitals nationwide. Unfortunately, the appropriateness of this concept in hospitals is uncertain due to lack of data. To understand the "Run, Hide, Fight" concept application in hospitals, a review of currently available data is needed. A systematic review was done focusing on the "Run, Hide, Fight" concept using multiple databases from the past 12 years. The PRISMA flow diagram was used to systematically select the articles based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The measurements were subjective evaluations and survival probabilities post-concept. One agent-based modeling study suggested a high survival probability in non-medical settings. However, there is a paucity of data supporting its effectiveness and applicability in hospitals. Literature suggests a better suitable concept, the "Secure, Preserve, Fight" concept, as a response protocol to active shootings in hospitals. The effectiveness of the "Run, Hide, Fight" concept in hospitals is questionable. The "Secure, Preserve, Fight" concept was found to be designed more specifically for hospitals and closes the gaps on the flaws in the "Run, Hide, Fight" concept.

Historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased.

How people recall the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is likely to prove crucial in future societal debates on pandemic preparedness and appropriate political action. Beyond simple forgetting, previous research suggests that recall may be distorted by strong motivations and anchoring perceptions on the current situation1-6. Here, using 4 studies across 11 countries (total n = 10,776), we show that recall of perceived risk, trust in institutions and protective behaviours depended strongly on current evaluations. Although both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were affected by this bias, people who identified strongly with their vaccination status-whether vaccinated or unvaccinated-tended to exhibit greater and, notably, opposite distortions of recall. Biased recall was not reduced by providing information about common recall errors or small monetary incentives for accurate recall, but was partially reduced by high incentives. Thus, it seems that motivation and identity influence the direction in which the recall of the past is distorted. Biased recall was further related to the evaluation of past political action and future behavioural intent, including adhering to regulations during a future pandemic or punishing politicians and scientists. Together, the findings indicate that historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased, sustain societal polarization and affect preparation for future pandemics. Consequently, future measures must look beyond immediate public-health implications to the longer-term consequences for societal cohesion and trust.