Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T07:52:54.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recurrent Medical Response Problems during Five Recent Disasters in the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Jorine Juffermans  and
Joost J.L.M. Bierens
Jorine Juffermans
Affiliation:
GHOR Academy, Netherlands Institute for Safety Nibra, Arnhem, the Netherlands
Joost J.L.M. Bierens*
Affiliation:
GHOR Academy, Netherlands Institute for Safety Nibra, Arnhem, the Netherlands
*
van Heurnlaan 10 5261 EW VUGHT, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives::

The aim of this qualitative, retrospective review is to identify and analyze the occurrence of recurrent problems in 20 processes that cover all relevant aspects of disaster health during the response phase. Consequently, an attempt is made to determine if there are generic themes of coherences in these problems.

Methods::

Eight after-action reports of five consecutive disasters in the Netherlands, between 1996 and 2005, were integrally analyzed in a structured manner. The analysis was confined to processes from the start of the event up to and including the initial stages of hospital admission.

Results::

Problems during all five disasters arose with eight processes: (1) submission of information to the ambulance dispatch center (ADC); (2) provision of information by the ADC to disaster response personnel; (3) scaling-up of prehospital response; (4) communication; (5) logistics; (6) registration; (7) multidisciplinary cooperation; and (8) preparation. Three generic themes of coherence were identified: (1) processes in which exchange of information among medical personal plays a major role are more likely to be affected by problems than processes in which this is less relevant; (2) processes in which disaster circumstances differ from day-to-day health care, or do not figure in day-to-day health care, are more likely to give rise to problems than processes that remain essentially similar; and (3) the existence of a protocol or disaster plan governing a process does not prevent problems.

Conclusions::

The method used enables a systematic analysis of the problems in health-related processes following five consecutive disasters. The analysis confirms that the majority of problems are repeated. The identified themes of coherences are in agreement with case reports and expert opinions. They are now supported with a higher level of evidence.

Keywords

communicationdisasterhealthcareprotocolpublic healthresearch
Type
Research Article
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 127 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2010

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. Quarantelli, EL: Assessing disaster preparedness planning: A set of criteria and their applicability to developing countries. Regional Development Dialogue 1988;1:48–69.Google Scholar
2. Sundness, KO, Birnbaum, ML: Health disaster management guidelines for evaluation and research in the Utstein Style. Prehosp Disaster Med 2003;17 (supplement 3): 1–177.10.1017/S1049023X00008906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Altntaş, KH, Delooz, H: The problems faced by three government disaster response teams of Ankara city during the Marmara earthquake—1999 response. Eur J Emerg Med 2004;11:95–101.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Bremer, R: Policy development in disaster preparedness and management: lessons learned from the January 2001 earthquake in Gujarat, India. Prehosp Disaster Med 2003;18:372–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Peleg, K, Reuveni, H, Stein, M: Earthquake disasters—Lessons to be learned: Isr Med Assoc J 2002 May;4(5):361–365.Google Scholar
6. Born, CT, Briggs, SM, Ciraulo, DL, Frykberg, ER, Hammond, JS, Hirshberg, A, Lhowe, DW, O'Neill, PA: Disasters and mass casualties: I. General principles of response and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007;15(7):388–396.10.5435/00124635-200707000-00004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Tännsjo, T: Ethical aspects of triage in mass casualty. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2007;20(2):143–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Burkle, FM Jr : Mass casualty management of a large-scale bioterrorist event: an epidemiological approach that shapes triage decisions. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2002;20(2):409–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Burkle, FM Jr : Population-based triage management in response to surge-capacity requirements during a large-scale bioevent disaster. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13(11):1118–1129.10.1197/j.aem.2006.06.040CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Lorin, H: Thirty-Five Years of Disaster-Medicine Studies. Experience from KAMEDO's Operations 1963-1998. Swedish National Board of Welfare, 1999.Google Scholar
11. Van Harten, SM, Bierens, JJ, Welling, L, Patka, P, Kreis, RW, Boers, M: The Volendam fire: Lessons learned from disaster research. Prehosp Disaster Med 2006;21(5):303–309.10.1017/S1049023X00003927CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Kulling, PE, Lorin, H: KAMEDO—A Swedish disaster medicine study organization. Prehosp Disaster Med 1999;14(1):18–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Näsman, U, Zetterberg-Randén, B, Brändstrom, H: KAMEDO report no. 88: Floods in the Czech Republic and Southeastern Germany, 2002. Prehosp Disaster Med 2007;22(1):90–92.10.1017/S1049023X00004416CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Deverell, E, Ortenwall, P, Almgren, O, Riddez, L: KAMEDO report no. 87: Bomb attack in Finnish shopping center, 2002. Prehosp Disaster Med 2007;22(1):86–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Riddez, L, Joussineau, S, Magnusson, E: KAMEDO report no. 86: Explosion in the artificial-fertilizer factory in France, 2001. Prehosp Disaster Med 2007;22(1):84–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Arnold, JL, Halpern, P, Tsai, MC, Smithline, H: Mass casualty terrorist bombings: A comparison of outcomes by bombing type. Ann Emerg Med 2004;43(2):263–273.10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00723-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Auf der Heide, E: The importance of evidence-based disaster planning. Ann Emerg Med 2006;47(1):33–49.10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.05.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Alexander, DE: Misconception as a barrier to teaching about disasters. Prehosp Disaster Med 2007;22(2):95–103.10.1017/S1049023X00004441CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Rüter, A, Ortenwall, P, Vikstrom, T: Staff procedure skills in management groups during exercises in disaster medicine. Prehosp Disaster Med 2007;22(4):318–321.10.1017/S1049023X00004933CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Rüter, A: Disaster medicine—Performance indicators, information support and documentation. A study of an evaluation tool. Thesis Linkoping University, Sweden, 2006.Google Scholar
21. De Boer, J: Tools for evaluating disasters: Preliminary results of some hundreds of disasters. Eur J Emerg Med 1997;4(2):107–110.10.1097/00063110-199706000-00010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Juffermans, J, Bierens JJLM: Communicatie, a fwijkinsen van routine handelingen en de beperkte waarde van protocollen: Repeterende problemen bij rijf recente flit-srampen in Nederland. Available at http://www.nifv.nl/web/show/id=46201/contentid=952. Accessed 11 March 2010.Google Scholar
23.Raad voor de Transportveiligheid: Hercules Ramp Eindhoven (Eindhoven Hercules Disaster). The Hague, December 2002. Available at http://www.nbdc.nl/cms/show/id=616194. Accessed 11 March 2010.Google Scholar
24. Werkgroep Herculesramp: Vliegramp Eindhoven (Eindhoven Air Disaster). The Hague, June 2000.Google Scholar
25. Inspectie Brandweerzorg en Rampenbestrijding: Dakota-incident Waddenzee 1996 (Wadden Sea Dakota Incident 1996). The Hague, September 1997. Available at http://www.tnbdc.nl/cms/show/id=430067. Accessed 11 March 2010.Google Scholar
26. Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg: Onderzoek vuurwerkramp Ensched (Investigation of the Enschede Fireworks Disaster). The Hague, January 2001. Available at http://www.vuurwerkramp.enschede.nl/publicaties/00005. Available at 11 March 2010.Google Scholar
27. MERV-onderzoeksgroep: Medische Evaluatie Ramp Volendam, fase 1 en fase 2 (Medical Evaluation of the Volendam Disaster, Phases 1 and 2). VUmc Amsterdam, BWC Beverwijk, AMC Amsterdam. Hentenaar book, Nieuwegein, 2003 and 2004.Google Scholar
28. Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg: Evaluatie cafébrand Volendam (Evaluation of the Volendam Bar Fire). The Hague, June 2001. Available at http://62.25.2.16/15451/96648/Rapport_Evaluatie_caf_brand1.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2010.Google Scholar
29. Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid: Brand cellencomplex Schiphol-Oost (Schiphol-East Detention Centre Fire). The Hague, September 2006. Available at http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/rapport_schipholbrand.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2010.Google Scholar
30.Regionaal bureau GHOR Amsterdam en omstreken: Evaluatie operationele geneeskundige hulpverlening brand detentiecentrum Schiphol-Oost op 27 oktober 2005 (Evaluation of the Operational Medical Response to the Fire at the Schiphol-East Detention Centre on 27 October 2005). December 2005.Google Scholar
31. Wagenvoort, J: Dutch measures to control MRSA and the expanding European Union. Euro Surveill 2000;5(3):26–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Chan, TC, Killeen, J, Griswold, W, Lenert, L: Information technology and emergency medical care during disasters. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11(11):1229–1236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Johnson, GA, Calkins, A: Pre-hospital triage and communication performance in small mass casualty incidents: A gauge for disaster preparedness. Am J Emerg Med 1999;17(2):148–150.10.1016/S0735-6757(99)90048-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Drabek, TE: Human System Responses to Disaster. An Inventory of Sociological Findings. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 1986.10.1007/978-1-4612-4960-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Singer, AJ, Singer, AH, Halperin, P, Kaspi, G, Assaf, J: Medical lessons from terror attacks in Israel. J Emerg Med 2007;32(1):87–92.10.1016/j.jemermed.2006.06.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Peleg, K, Michaelson, M, Shapira, SC, Aharonson-Daniel, L: Principles of emergency management in disasters. Adv Ren Replace Ther 2003;10(2):117–121.10.1053/jarr.2003.50019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Quarantelli, EL: Ten criteria for evaluating the management of community disasters. Disasters 1997;21(1):39–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Marghella, PD: Medical planning considerations in consequence management. Front Health Serv Manage 2002;19(1):15–23.10.1097/01974520-200207000-00003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. London Emergency Services Liaison Panel: Major Incident Procedure Manual. 7h Ed. London: The Stationary Office, 2007.Google Scholar
40. Reynolds, B, Seeger, MW: Crisis and emergency risk communication. J Health Communication 2005;10:43–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. International Criminal Police Organisation: Disaster Victims Identification Guide. Lyon: Interpol, 1997.Google Scholar
42. Lillibridge, SR, Noji, EK: The importance of medical records in disaster epidemiology research. J AHIMA 1992;63:137–138.Google ScholarPubMed
43. Bouman, JH, Schouwerwou, RJ, Van der Eijk, KJ, Van Leusden, AJ, Savelkoul, TJ: Computerization of patient tracking and tracing during mass casualty incidents. Eur J Emerg Med 2000;7(3):211–216.10.1097/00063110-200009000-00009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Noordergraaf, GJ, Bouman, JH, Van den Brink, EJ, Van de Pompe, C, Savelkoul, TJ: Development of computer-assisted patient control for use in the hospital setting during mass casualty incidents. Am J Emerg Med 1996;14(3):257–261.10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90170-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. Zhao, X, Rafiq, A, Hummel, R, Fei, DY, Merrell, RC: Integration of information technology, wireless networks, and personal digital assistants for triage and casualty. Telemed J E Health 2006;12(4):466–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Arnold, JL, Levine, BN, Manmatha, R, Lee, F, Shenov, P, Tsai, MC, Ibrahim, TK, O'Brien, DJ, Walsh, DA: Information-sharing in out-of-hospital disaster response: the future role of information technology. Prehosp Disaster Med 2004;19(3):201–207.10.1017/S1049023X00001783CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Shinchi, K, Ashida, H: Proposal of a model for medical records for international disaster relief operations. Mil Med 2003;168(2):120–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Hamilton, J: An Internet-based bar code tracking system: Coordination of confusion at mass casualty incidents. Disaster Manag Response 2003;1(1):25–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. Plischke, M, Wolf, KH, Lison, T, Pretschner, DP: Telemedical support of pre-hospital emergency care in mass casualty incidents. Eur J Med Res 1999;4(9):394–398.Google Scholar
50. Hirshberg, A, Holcomb, JB, Mattox, KL: Hospital trauma care in multiple-casualty incidents: a critical view. Ann Emerg Med 2001;37(6):647–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51. Quarantelli, EL: Research based criteria for evaluating disaster planning and managing. Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, 1997. Available at http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/19716/136/1/PP247-Research%20Based%20Criteria.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2010.Google Scholar
52. Zsambok, CE, Klein, GA: Naturalistic Decision Making. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.Google Scholar
53. Kowalski-Trakofler, KM, Vaught, C, Scharf, T: Judgment and decision making under stress: an overview for emergency makers. Int J Emergency Management 2003;1(3):278–289.10.1504/IJEM.2003.003297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54. Reason, J: Human error: models and management. BMJ 2000;320:768–770.10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55. Reason, J: Understanding adverse events: Human factors. Qual Health Care 1995;4(2):80–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56. Reason, J: Combating omission errors through task analysis and good reminders. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:40–44.10.1136/qhc.11.1.40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57. Welling, L: Medical management after major burn incidents. Thesis Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006.Google Scholar
58. Rutland-Brown, W, Langlois, JA, Nicaj, L, Thomas, RG Jr, Wilt, SA, Bazarian, JJ: Traumatic brain injuries after mass-casualty incidents: lessons from the 11 September 2001 World Trade Center attacks. Prehosp Disaster Med 2007;22(3):157–164.10.1017/S1049023X00004593CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed