We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Although most hospitals have an emergency department disas- ter plan, most never have been implemented in a true disaster or been tested objectively. Computer simulation may be a useful tool to predict emergency department patient flow during a disaster.
Purpose:
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of a computer simulation in predicting emergency department patient flow during a masscasualty incident with that of a real-time, virtual, live exercise.
Methods:
History, physical examination findings, and laboratory results for 136 simulated patients were extracted from the disastermed.ca patient database as used as input into a computer simulation designed to represent the emergency department at the University of Alberta Hospital.The computer simulation was developed using a commercially available simulation software platform (2005, SimProcess, CACI Products, San Diego CA). Patient flow parameters were compared to a previous virtual, live exercise using the same data set.
Results:
Although results between the computer simulation and the live exercise appear similar, they differ statistically with respect to many patient benchmarks. There was a marked difference between the triage codes assigned during the live exercise and those from the patient database; however, this alone did not account for the differences between the patient groups. It is likely that novel approaches to patient care developed by the live exercise group, which are difficult to model by computer software, contributed to differences between the groups. Computer simulation was useful, however, in predicting how small changes to emergency department structure, such as adding staff or patient care areas, can influence patient flow.
Conclusions:
Computer simulation is helpful in defining the effects of changes to a hospital disaster plan. However, it cannot fully replace participant exercises. Rather, computer simulation and live exercises are complementary, and both may be useful for disaster plan evaluation.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.