Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:05:30.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergency Medical Assistance Team Response following Taiwan Chi-Chi Earthquake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Edbert B. Hsu ,
Matthew Ma ,
Fang Yue Lin ,
Michael J. VanRooyen  and
Frederick M. Burkle Jr
Edbert B. Hsu
Affiliation:
Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies, Departments of Emergency Medicine and International Health, The Johns Hopkins University Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
Matthew Ma*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Fang Yue Lin
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
Michael J. VanRooyen
Affiliation:
Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies, Departments of Emergency Medicine and International Health, The Johns Hopkins University Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
Frederick M. Burkle Jr
Affiliation:
Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies, Departments of Emergency Medicine and International Health, The Johns Hopkins University Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, #7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

On 21 September, 1999, an earthquake measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale, struck central Taiwan near the town of Chi-Chi. The event resulted in 2,405 deaths and 11,306 injuries. Ad hoc emergency medical assistance teams (EMATs) from Taiwan assumed the responsibility for initiating early assessments and providing medical care.

Objective:

To determine whether the EMATs served a key role in assisting critically injured patients through the assessment of number and level of hospitals responding, training background, timeliness of response, and acuity of patient encounters.

Methods:

Local and national health bureaus were contacted to identify hospitals that responded to the disaster. A comprehensive questionnaire was piloted and then, sent to those major medical centers that dispatched EMATs within the first 72 hours following the quake. In-depth interviews also were conducted with team leaders.

Results:

A total number of 104 hospitals/clinics responded to the disaster, including nine major medical centers and 12 regional hospitals. Each of the major medical centers/regional hospitals that dispatched EMATs during the first 72 hours following the quake were surveyed. Also, 20 individual team leaders were interviewed. Seventy-nine percent of the EMATs from the hospitals responded spontaneously to the scene, while only 21% were dispatched directly by national or local health authorities. Combining the phases of the disaster response, it is estimated that only 7% of EMATs were providing on-site care within the first 12 hours following the earthquake, 17% within <18 hours, and 20% within <24 hours. Thus, 80% of these EMATs required >24 hours to respond to the site. Based on a ED I-IV triage system (Level-I, highest acuity; Level-IV, lowest acuity), the vast majority of patient encounters consisted of Level-III and Level-IV patients. Fewer than 16% of teams encountered >10 Level-I patients, and <28% of teams evaluated >10 Level-II patients.

Conclusions:

1. The response from EMATs was impressive, but largely uncoordinated in the absence of a pre-existing dispatching mechanism.

2. Most of the EMATs required >24 hours to reach the disaster sites, and generally, did not arrive in time to affect the outcome of victims with preventable deaths. Therefore, there is an urgent need to strengthen local prehospital care.

3. A central governmental body that ensures better horizontal and vertical integration, and a comprehensive emergency management system is required in order to improve future disaster response and mitigation efforts.

Keywords

disasterearthquakeemergencyemergency responseintegrationmedical assistance teammitigationTaiwan
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 17 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2002

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. The 43rd Report from the Central Weather Bureau, Ministry of Transport and Communication, Republic of China. Available at www.cwb.gov.tw. Accessed 11 October, 1999.Google Scholar
2. Department of Health, Republic of China. Available at doh.gov.tw Accessed 14 November, 1999.Google Scholar
3. Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics Executive Yuan, Republic of China. Available at http://www.dgbasey.gov.tw. Accessed March 2000.Google Scholar
4. Noji, EK: Earthquakes. In: Noji, EK. The Public Health Consequences of Disasters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1997. pp 135–178.Google Scholar
5. Waeckerle, J: Disaster planning and response. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 815–821Google ScholarPubMed
6. Survey interviews with individual EMAT leaders, 3–15 October 1999.Google Scholar
7. Aghababian, R, Lewis, CP, Gans, L, et al: Disasters within hospitals. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 23: 771–777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Burkle, FM, Hayden, R: The concept of assisted large-scale disasters by horizontal organizations. Prehosp Disast Med 2001; 16: 87–96.Google Scholar
9. Garshne, V, Burkle, FM: Telecommunication systems in support of disaster medicine: Applications of basic information pathways. Ann Emerg Med 1999; 34: 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Pretto, EA, Ricci, E, Klain, M, et al: Disaster reanimatology potentials: A structured interview study in Armenia. III. Results, conclusions, and recommendations. Prehosp Disaster Med 1992; 7: 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Pretto, EA, Angus, DC, Abrams, JI, et al: An analysis of prehospital mortality in an earthquake. Prehosp Disast Med 1994; 9: 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Thiel, CC, Schneider, JE, Hiatt, D, et al: 911 EMS process in the Loma Prieta earthquake. Prehosp Disast Med 1992; 7: 348–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Sheng, ZY: Medical support in the Tangshan earthquake: A review of the management of mass casualties and certain major injuries. J Trauma 1987; 27: 1130–1135.Google ScholarPubMed
14. DeBruycker, M, Greco, D, Annino, I, et al: The 1980 earthquake in southern Italy: Rescue of trapped victims and mortality. Bull World Health Organ 1983; 61: 1021–1025.Google Scholar
15. Noji, EK: Medical and health care aspects of the 1988 earthquake in Soviet Armenia. Earthquake Spectra 1989; 5: Suppl: 101–107.Google Scholar
16. Schultz, CH, Koenig, KL, Noji, EK: A medical disaster response to reduce immediate mortality after an earthquake. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 438–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. National Fire Department Administrations, Ministry of Interior, Republic of China. Available at: http://www.nfa.gov.tw/report/earthquake.html Accessed 14 November, 1999.Google Scholar
18. Liang, NJ, Shih, YT, Shih, FY, et al: Disaster epidemiology and medical response in the Chi-Chi Earthquake in Taiwan. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38: 549–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. DeVille, C, Jeannee, E: Earthquake in Guatemala: Epidemiological evaluation of the relief effort. Emerg Plann Dig 1977; 4: 2–8.Google Scholar
20. Noji, EK: Evaluation of the efficacy of disaster response: Research at the Johns Hopkins University. UNDRO News 1987: 11–13.Google Scholar