Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T14:11:06.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

9-1-1 EMS Process in the Loma Prieta Earthquake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Charles C. Thiel ,
James E. Schneider ,
Donald Hiatt  and
Michael E. Durkin
Charles C. Thiel*
Affiliation:
Institute for Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
James E. Schneider
Affiliation:
Santa Cruz Emergency Medical Services Agency, Santa Cruz, Calif.
Donald Hiatt
Affiliation:
Santa Cruz Emergency Medical Services Agency, Santa Cruz, Calif.
Michael E. Durkin
Affiliation:
Michael E. Durkin & Associates, Woodland Hills, Calif.
*
365 San Carlos Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Santa Cruz County 9-1-1 emergency response system was taxed severely with over 1,000 calls during the first seven hours following the Loma Prieta earthquake. It remained functional and responsive, making 229 ambulance runs in the 72-hour period following the earthquake. Initially, the demand was very high compared to normal, but decreased to slightly greater than normal levels during the second day. A fewer than normal number of advanced life support transports were required, and the number of vehicular accident cases were fewer than normal following the earthquake. The 9-1-1 center adopted an abbreviated procedure and only attempted to determine if the call was a medical emergency and the location for dispatch. During the initial emergency period, there were an unusually low proportion of transports and an unusually high number of cases in which the patient was not located. The medical system in Santa Cruz County was able to accommodate the injury load: the health care system was extensive; its three community hospitals were not damaged severely; and there was light demand.

Based on this experience, a revised 9-1-1 emergency medical services (EMS) procedure is recommended for disaster periods: 1) the dispatcher inquires whether the patient can be transported by other means; 2) the caller is asked to explain the need for an ambulance in order to assign a priority to the request; and 3) the caller is asked to cancel the call if there no longer is a need. This procedure is expected to improve disaster management of limited ambulance resources during and following a disaster, while maintaining rapid call processing.

Keywords

advanced life supportambulance responsecall-takersdisaster proceduresdisaster operationsdispatch prioritiesearthquakeinjuries
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 348 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1992

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. Thiel, CC (ed.): Competing Against Time: Report to the Governor from the Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. George W. Housner, Chairman, State of California Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, Calif, May 1990.Google Scholar
2. Benuska, L (technical ed.): Loma Prieta earthquake reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra 1990;6: Supplement.Google Scholar
3. Durkin, ME, Thiel, CC, Schneider, JE, et al. : Injuries and emergency medical response in the Loma Prieta earthquake. Bull Seismological Soc Amer 1991;81:2143–2166.Google Scholar
4. Bureau of the Census: Press release containing California census results by city and county, 26 January 1991. Washington, D.C., Department of Commerce, 1991.Google Scholar
5. Proceedings, International Workshop on Earthquake Injury Epidemiology for Mitigation and Response, the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Maryland, 10–12 July 1989.Google Scholar
6. Durkin, MD, Thiel, CC: Integrating earthquake casualty and loss estimation. Proceedings of the Workshop on Modeling Earthquake Casualties for Planning and Response, 4–6 December 1990, Pacific Grove, California. Sacramento, Calif.: VSP Associates, 1991.Google Scholar
7. Thiel, CC: An assessment of the consequences and preparedness for a catastrophic California earthquake: Findings and actions taken. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1980.Google Scholar
8. Durkin, ME, Aroni, S, Colson, A: Injuries in the Coalinga Earthquake. In The Coalinga Earthquake of May 2 1983. El Cerrito, Calif.: Engineering Research Institute, 1983.Google Scholar
9. Schneider, JE: Report to the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors on EMS in the Loma Prieta Earthquake. 19 October 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar