Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:36:59.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Earthquake Epidemiology: The 1994 Los Angeles Earthquake Emergency Department Experience at a Community Hospital

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

A. Antoine Kazzi ,
Mark I. Langdorf ,
Neal Handly ,
Karen White  and
Ken Ellis
A. Antoine Kazzi*
Affiliation:
University of California-Irvine
Mark I. Langdorf
Affiliation:
University of California-Irvine
Neal Handly
Affiliation:
University of California-Irvine
Karen White
Affiliation:
Granada Hills Community Hospital
Ken Ellis
Affiliation:
University of California-Irvine
*
*Division of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, 101 The City Drive, Orange, CA 92868, USA Email: [email protected] (preferred)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

To assess the volume of patients and the composition of their injuries and illnesses that presented to an emergency department (ED) close to the epicenter of an earthquake that occurred in a seismically prepared area.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of data abstracted from charts and ED logs for patient census and types of injuries and illnesses of the patients who presented in the ED of a community hospital before and after the earthquake (6.8 Richter scale) that occurred in 1994 in Los Angeles. Illnesses were classified as trauma- and non-trauma related. Data were compared with epidemiological profiles of earthquakes in seismically prepared and unprepared areas.

Results:

A statistically significant increase in ED patient census over baseline lasted 11 days. There was a large increase in the number of traumatic injuries such as lacerations and orthopedic injuries during the first 48 hours. Beginning on the third day after the event, primary care conditions predominated. When the effects of the LA quake were compared with those of similar Richter magnitude and disruptive capability, the ED epidemiology profile was similar to those in seismically unprepared areas, except for the total number of casualties.

Conclusion:

The majority of patients with traumatic injuries presented within the first 48 hours. The increase relative to baseline lasted 11 days. Efforts to develop disaster response systems from resources outside the disaster-stricken area should focus on providing mostly primary care assistance. Communities in seismically prepared areas could require external medical assistance for their EDsfor up to two weeks following the event.

Keywords

earthquakeepidemiologyLos Angeles earthquakedisasteremergency medicineGranada Hillsinjury profileNorthridgeseismic
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 20 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Binder, S, Sanderson, L: The role of the epidemiologist in natural disasters. Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:1081–1084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Schultz, C, Koenig, K, Noji, EK: A medical disaster response to reduce immediate mortality after an earthquake. N Engl J Med 1996;334:438–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Langness, D: The Northridge Earthquake: Planning and fast action minimize devastation. California Hospitals 1994;8:8–10, 12–13.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Stratton, S, Hastings, V, Isbell, D, et al: The 1994 Northridge Earthquake disaster response: The Local Emergency Medical Services Agency experience. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1996;11:172–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Noji, EK: Evaluation of the efficacy of disaster response: Research at the John Hopkins University. UNDRO News 1987; July-August: 11–13.Google Scholar
6.Lillibridge, S, Noji, E, Burkle, F: Disaster assessment: The emergency health evaluation of a population affected by a disaster. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:1715–1720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Waeckerle, J: Disaster planning and response. N Engl J Med 1991;324:815–821.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Zhi-Yong, Sheng: Medical support in the Tangshan Earthquake: A review of the management of mass casualties and certain major injuries. J Trauma 1987;27:1130–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Alexander, D: The health effects of earthquakes in the mid- 1990s. Disasters 1996;20:231–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Stratton, JW: Earthquake. The Public Health Consequences of Disasters, Gregg, M (ed), Center for Disease Control, Public Health Services, Atlanta, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1986.Google Scholar
11.Federal Emergency Management Agency: An Assessment of the Consequences and Preparedness for a Catastrophic California Earthquake. Washington, DC, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1980.Google Scholar
12.Carr, S, Leahy, S, London, S, et al: The public health response to Los Angeles 1994 earthquake. American Journal of Public Health 1996;86:589–590.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Salinas, C, Salinas, C, Kurata, J: Effects of the Northridge Earthquake on the pattern of emergency department care. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 1998;16:254–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Reeder, L: The Los Angeles earthquake response “system”: People doing what they had to do. Journal of Emergency Medical Services 1994; March: 68–74.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Koenig, K, Dinerman, N, Kuehl, EL: Disaster nomenclature — A functional impact approach: The PICE system. Academic Emergency Medicine 1996;3:723–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Waeckerle, J, Lillibridge, S, Burkle, F, et al: Disaster medicine: Challenges for today. Ann Emerg Med 1994;23:715–718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Mahoney, L, Reutershan, T: Catastrophic disasters and the design of disaster medical care systems. Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:1085–1091.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Spencer, H, Campbell, C, Romeo, A, et al: Disease surveillance and decision-making after the 1976 Guatemala Earthquake. Lancet 1977;2:181–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Noji, E, Kelen, G, Armenian, H, et al: The 1988 earthquake in Soviet Armenia: A case study. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:891–897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.De Bruycker, M, Greco, D, Lechat, M: The 1980 earthquake in Southern Italy: Morbidity and mortality. International Journal of Epidemiology 1985;14:113–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Eberhart-Phillips, J, Saunders, T, Robinson, A, et al: Profile of mortality from the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake using coroner and medical examiner reports. Disasters 1994;18:160–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Baba, S, Taniguchi, H, Nambu, S, et al: The Great Hanshin Earthquake. Lancet 1996;347:307–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Ishii, N, Nakayama, S: Emergency medical care following The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake: Practices and proposals. Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences 1996;42:173–186.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Handly, N, Kazzi, A, Langdorf, M, et al: Medical response to the Northridge earthquake: The importance of locally organized and rapidly responding medical teams. The University of New Mexico Center for Disaster Medicine Fourth Disaster Medical Issues in America Conference, 01 October, 1996.Google Scholar