Crisis Standards of Care Implementation at the State Level in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: In 2009, the Institute of Medicine published guidelines for implementation of Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) at the state level in the United States (US). Based in part on the then concern for H1N1 pandemic, there was a recognized need for additional planning at the state level to maintain health system preparedness and conventional care standards when available resources become scarce. Despite the availability of this framework, in the years since and despite repeated large-scale domestic events, implementation remains mixed. PROBLEM: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rejuvenates concern for how health systems can maintain quality care when faced with unrelenting burden. This study seeks to outline which states in the US have developed CSC and which areas of care have thus far been addressed. METHODS: An online search was conducted for all 50 states in 2015 and again in 2020. For states without CSC plans online, state officials were contacted by email and phone. Public protocols were reviewed to assess for operational implementation capabilities, specifically highlighting guidance on ventilator use, burn management, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, pediatric standards, and reliance on influenza planning. RESULTS: Thirty-six states in the US were actively developing (17) or had already developed (19) official CSC guidance. Fourteen states had no publicly acknowledged effort. Eleven of the 17 public plans had updated within five years, with a majority addressing ventilator usage (16/17), influenza planning (14/17), and pediatric care (15/17), but substantially fewer addressing care for burn patients (9/17). CONCLUSION: Many states lacked publicly available guidance on maintaining standards of care during disasters, and many states with specific care guidelines had not sufficiently addressed the full spectrum of hazard to which their health care systems remain vulnerable.

Use of Dimensional Analysis in the X-, Y-, and Z-Axis to Predict Occurrence of Injury in Human Stampede.

BACKGROUND: Human stampedes (HS) may result in mass casualty incidents (MCI) that arise due to complex interactions between individuals, collective crowd, and space, which have yet to be described from a physics perspective. HS events were analyzed using basic physics principles to better understand the dynamic kinetic variables that give rise to HS. METHODS: A literature review was performed of medical and nonmedical sourced databases, Library of Congress databases, and online sources for the term human stampedes resulting in 25,123 references. Filters were applied to exclude nonhuman events. Retrieved references were reviewed for a predefined list of physics terms. Data collection involved recording frequency of each phrase and physics principle to give the final proportions of each predefined principle used a single-entry method for each of the 105 event reports analyzed. Data analysis was performed using the R statistics packages "tidyverse", "psych", "lubridate", and "Hmisc" with descriptive statistics used to describe the frequency of each observed variable. RESULTS: Of the 105 reports of HS resulting in injury or death reviewed, the following frequency of terms were found: density change in a limited capacity, 45%; XY-axis motion failure, 100%; loss of proxemics, 100%; deceleration with average velocity of zero, 90%; Z-axis displacement pathology (falls), 92%; associated structure with nozzle effect, 93%; and matched fluid dynamic of high pressure stagnation of mass gathering, 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Description or reference to principles of physics was seen in differing frequency in 105 reports. These include XY-axis motion failure of deceleration that leads to loss of human to human proxemics, and high stagnation pressure resulting in the Z-axis displacement effect (falls) causing injury and death. Real-time video-analysis monitoring of high capacity events or those with known nozzle effects for loss of proxemics and Z-axis displacement pathology offers the opportunity to prevent mortality from human stampedes.

Core Disaster Medicine Education (CDME) for Emergency Medicine Residents in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Disaster Medicine (DM) education for Emergency Medicine (EM) residents is highly variable due to time constraints, competing priorities, and program expertise. The investigators' aim was to define and prioritize DM core competencies for EM residency programs through consensus opinion of experts and EM professional organization representatives. METHODS: Investigators utilized a modified Delphi methodology to generate a recommended, prioritized core curriculum of 40 DM educational topics for EM residencies. RESULTS: The DM topics recommended and outlined for inclusion in EM residency training included: patient triage in disasters, surge capacity, introduction to disaster nomenclature, blast injuries, hospital disaster mitigation, preparedness, planning and response, hospital response to chemical mass-casualty incident (MCI), decontamination indications and issues, trauma MCI, disaster exercises and training, biological agents, personal protective equipment, and hospital response to radiation MCI. CONCLUSIONS: This expert-consensus-driven, prioritized ranking of DM topics may serve as the core curriculum for US EM residency programs.

Disaster Medicine: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature From 2016.

OBJECTIVE: The Society of Academic Emergency Medicine Disaster Medicine Interest Group, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response - Technical Resources, Assistance Center, and Information Exchange (ASPR TRACIE) team, and the National Institutes of Health Library searched disaster medicine peer-reviewed and gray literature to identify, review, and disseminate the most important new research in this field for academics and practitioners. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus databases were searched with key words. Additional gray literature and focused hand search were performed. A Level I review of titles and abstracts with inclusion criteria of disaster medicine, health care system, and disaster type concepts was performed. Eight reviewers performed Level II full-text review and formal scoring for overall quality, impact, clarity, and importance, with scoring ranging from 0 to 20. Reviewers summarized and critiqued articles scoring 16.5 and above. RESULTS: Articles totaling 1176 were identified, and 347 were screened in a Level II review. Of these, 193 (56%) were Original Research, 117 (34%) Case Report or other, and 37 (11%) were Review/Meta-Analysis. The average final score after a Level II review was 11.34. Eighteen articles scored 16.5 or higher. Of the 18 articles, 9 (50%) were Case Report or other, 7 (39%) were Original Research, and 2 (11%) were Review/Meta-Analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This first review highlighted the breadth of disaster medicine, including emerging infectious disease outbreaks, terror attacks, and natural disasters. We hope this review becomes an annual source of actionable, pertinent literature for the emerging field of disaster medicine.

Disaster Education: A Survey Study to Analyze Disaster Medicine Training in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The increase in natural and man-made disasters occurring worldwide places Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians at the forefront of responding to these crises. Despite the growing interest in Disaster Medicine, it is unclear if resident training has been able to include these educational goals. Hypothesis This study surveys EM residencies in the United States to assess the level of education in Disaster Medicine, to identify competencies least and most addressed, and to highlight effective educational models already in place. METHODS: The authors distributed an online survey of multiple-choice and free-response questions to EM residency Program Directors in the United States between February 7 and September 24, 2014. Questions assessed residency background and details on specific Disaster Medicine competencies addressed during training. RESULTS: Out of 183 programs, 75 (41%) responded to the survey and completed all required questions. Almost all programs reported having some level of Disaster Medicine training in their residency. The most common Disaster Medicine educational competencies taught were patient triage and decontamination. The least commonly taught competencies were volunteer management, working with response teams, and special needs populations. The most commonly identified methods to teach Disaster Medicine were drills and lectures/seminars. CONCLUSION: There are a variety of educational tools used to teach Disaster Medicine in EM residencies today, with a larger focus on the use of lectures and hospital drills. There is no indication of a uniform educational approach across all residencies. The results of this survey demonstrate an opportunity for the creation of a standardized model for resident education in Disaster Medicine. Sarin RR , Cattamanchi S , Alqahtani A , Aljohani M , Keim M , Ciottone GR . Disaster education: a survey study to analyze disaster medicine training in emergency medicine residency programs in the United States. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(4):368-373.