Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T21:32:28.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceived Preparedness for a Mass Casualty Disaster in the United States: A Survey*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Jeffrey Glick  and
Marvin L. Birnbaum
Jeffrey Glick*
Affiliation:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Marvin L. Birnbaum
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine and Physiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
*
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500C Street S.W., Washington D.C. 20472USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

A mass casualty disaster (MCD) never has occurred in the United States, but such an event remains a fearful possibility. The purpose of this study was to establish baseline information concerning the perceptions relative to the capabilities of the United States to respond to a MCD of persons most likely to involved in the responses to such an event when it does occur.

Methods:

A survey was constructed in 1995 to query the perceptions of persons in authority in federal, state, and local agencies who would participate in the medical responses to a MCD. Participants were asked to select the most likely scenario, a hurricane or earthquake, that could generate 30,000 casualties within their respective region. The survey requested respondent's perceptions as to the timing of the federal responses and the quality and sufficiency of these responses. The survey also sought information about the availability of plans to meet such a catastrophe in the region, and the frequency with which such plans have been exercised.

Responses were grouped by phase of the responses and whether the respondents were employed by federal, state, or local agencies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. When appropriate, a one-tailed t-test was used to compare the responses of the groups. A p-value = 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

A total of 104 surveys were distributed of which 88 were completed and returned (85%). Both the federal and state respondents had considerable experienced in this area.

Overall, the federal respondents were more optimistic about the availability, utility, and timely arrival of federal resources to assist regions in meeting the medical needs. In each of the three phases of MCD responses evaluated (medical response, patient evacuation, and definitive care), there was concern that there were insufficient resources to meet the requirements. States and local respondents perceived that initially, they will be on their own for field rescue, life-supporting first-aid, and casualty evacuation. Respondents acknowledged that a combination of local, state, federal, and private resources eventually would be needed to meet the huge demand. Only 31% federal and 26% state/local respondents believed that there will be sufficient combined local, state, federal, and private resources to meet the requirements for the evacuation of casualties to definitive care facilities outside of the region, and another 50% acknowledged the resources would only partially meet these requirements. Sixty-eight percent of state/local respondents believed that there would be insufficient local, state, federal, and private definitive care resources to meet the requirements for definitive care.

Conclusion:

While three years have elapsed since the survey was conducted and there have been some improvements in preparedness and responses, concerns center around the perceived lack of resource capability or lack of ability to get the resources to the MCD scene in time to meet requirements. Such perceptions by experienced professionals warrant further review by those at all levels of government responsible for planning and responding to mass casualty disasters.

Keywords

casualtiescasualty clearingdefinitive medical caredisasterdisaster responsesevacuationfirst aidlife-supporting first aidmass casualty disastermedical responsespreparednessrescuesearch and rescue
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 13 , Issue 2-4 , December 1998 , pp. 28 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1998

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.)

Footnotes

*

Mass Casualty Disaster is called a “Catastrophic Casualty Disaster” by many.

References

1. Stickney, W: In the catastrophic disaster: Who will help the injured? Journal of Civil Defense 1991;June:16.Google Scholar
2. Bosner, L: Are we ready for an Armenia-Style earthquake?, Journal of Emergency Medical Services 1989;14:6–8.Google Scholar
3. Federal Emergency Management Agency: The Federal Response Plan. Washington D.C. 1993.Google Scholar
4. National Disaster Medical System: Strategic Vision, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1994. p II–4.Google Scholar
5. Pollander, GS, Rund, DA: Analysis of medical needs in disasters caused by earthquake: The need for a uniform injury reporting scheme. Disasters 1992;13:365–369.Google Scholar
6. Noji, E: Medical/health planning and response to earthquake-related building collapse. Testimony to the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space and Technology. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington D.C., 15 March, 1989), p 3.Google Scholar
7. Sapir, DG, Lechat, MF: Reducing the impact of natural disasters: Why aren't we better prepared? Health Policy and Planning 1986;1–2:118–124.Google Scholar
8. Baine, DP: Readiness of U.S. contingency hospital systems to treat war casualties. Testimony to Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee On Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington D.C. (25 March, 1992). p.5.Google Scholar
9. Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance: Disaster History: Significant Data on Major Disasters Worldwide, 1900—present. Washington, DC: Agency for International Development. 1990; pp 1–145.Google Scholar
10. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): An Assessment of Damage and Casualties for Six Cities in the Central United States Resulting from Earthquakes in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Washington, DC. No. EMK-C-0057; 1985.Google Scholar
11. Nishenko, SP, Bollinger, GA: Forecasting damaging earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. Science 1990;249:1412–1416.Google Scholar
12. Hall, JF (ed): Northridge Earthquake, 17 January 1994: Preliminary Reconnaissance Report. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 1994; pp 42–44.Google Scholar
13. Comartin, CD, Greene, M (eds): The Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake: 17 January 1995: Preliminary Reconnaissance Report. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. No.4; 1995; pp 22–29.Google Scholar
14. United Nations Centre for Regional Development: Comprehensive Study of the Great Hanshin Earthquake. Nagoya, Japan; 1995; pp 74–75.Google Scholar
15. Cole, EE: Costa Rica earthquake of 22 April 1991: Reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra 1991;7(SuppIement B. 91-02):41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. State and Federal Hazard Mitigation Team: Loma Prieta Earthquake, 17 October 1989, Survey Report. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-845-DR-.CA; 1990; pp 17–18.Google Scholar
17. Loma Prieta Earthquake Reconnaissance Report: Socioeconomic impacts of emergency response. Earthquake Spectra 1990;6:393–451.Google Scholar
18. Klain, M, Ricci, E, Safar, P et al. : Disaster reanimatology potentials: A structured interview study in Armenia I. Preliminary results and methodology. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1989;4:135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Ricci, EM, Pretto, EA, Safar, P et al. : Disaster reanimatology potentials: A structured interview study in Armenia II. Method for evaluation of medical response to major disasters. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1991;6:159–166.Google Scholar
20. Pretto, EA, Ricci, EM, Klain, M, Safar, P: Disaster reanimatology potentials: A structured interview study in Armenia III. Results, conclusions and recommendations. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1992;7:327–337.Google Scholar
21. Bissell, RA, Pretto, EA, Angus, DC et al. : Post-preparedness medical disaster response in Costa Rica. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1994;9:96–106.Google Scholar
22. Pretto, EA, Angus, DC, Abrams, JI et al. : An analysis of prehospital deaths in an earthquake. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1994;9:107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Barka, AA, Toksoz, MN, Gukn, L, Kadinsky-Cade, K: Segmentation, seismicity and earthquake potential of the eastern part of the North Anatolian fault zone, Yerbilimleri. Earth Science 1987;14:337–352.Google Scholar
24. Guikan, P: A preliminary field reconnaisance report on the Erzincan earthquake of 13 March 1992. El Cirrito, CA. Learning from Earthquakes Project, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 1992.Google Scholar
25. Guikan, P, Ergunay, O: Proceedings of the Turkish Disaster Management Seminar. Ankara, Turkey. United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO), United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 1992.Google Scholar
26. Earthquake Research Institute MO: The Erzincan Earthquake of 18 November 1983. Ankara, Turkey [Turkish]. 1983.Google Scholar
27. Angus, DC, Pretto, EA, Shen, B et al. : Use of a modified trauma score in the prehospital assessment of disaster victims. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1993;8:S146.Google Scholar
28. Niederman, MS, Bass, JB, Campbell, GD et al. : Guidelines for the initial management of adults with community acquired pneumonia: Diagnosis, assessments of severity, and initial antimicrobial therapy. American Review of Respiratory Diseases 1993;148:1418–1426.Google Scholar
29. Glass, RI, Urrutia, JJ, Sibony, S et al. : Earthquake injuries related to housing in a Guatemalan village. Science 1977; 197:638–641.Google Scholar
30. Comfort, LKInternational disaster assistance in the Mexico City earthquake. New World 1986;1:12–43.Google Scholar
31. Noji, EK, Kelen, GD, Armenian, HK et al. : The 1988 earthquake in Soviet Armenia: A case study. Ann Emerg Med 1990;19:891–897.Google Scholar
32. Sheng, CY: Medical support in the Tangshan earthquake: A review of the management of mass casualties and certain major injuries. J Trauma 1987;27:11–30.Google ScholarPubMed
34. Emergency Management Institute NE Federal Emergency Management Agency: Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) Course. Washington, D.C. No. IG-317 1994.Google Scholar
35. Angus, DC, Pretto, EA, Abrams, J, Safar, P: Life-supporting first-aid training of the lay public for disaster preparedness. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1991;6:257. Abstract.Google Scholar
36. Abrams, JA, Pretto, EA, Angus, DC, Safar, P: Basic extrication training of the lay public for disaster preparedness. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1993;8:151–156.Google Scholar
37. 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.Google Scholar
38. Angus, DC, Pretto, EA, Abrams, JI et al. : Epidemiologic assessment of mortality, building collapse pattern, and medical response after the 1992 earthquake in Turkey. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1997;12:222–231.Google Scholar
39. Federal Emergency Management Agency, California Office of Emergency Services: The Northridge earthquake, a case study in disaster response. Federal Emergency Management Agency DR-1008-CA-PR#331.19 July 1994.Google Scholar
40. Stratton, SJ, Hastings, VP, 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
41. Johnson, MS: The tale of the tragedy of Neftegorsk. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1998;13:59–64.Google Scholar
42. Maningus, PA, Robison, M, Mallonee, S: The EMS response to the Oklahoma City bombing. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1997;12:80–85.Google Scholar
43. Leonard, RB, Spangler, HM, Stringer, LW: Medical outreach after hurricane Marilyn. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1997;12:189–194.Google Scholar
44. Levi, L, Bregman, D, Geva, H, Revach, M: Hospital disaster management simulation system. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1998:13:29–34.Google Scholar
45. Cowan, ML, Cloutier, MG: Medical simulation for disaster casualty management training. J Trauma 1988;28:S178–182.Google Scholar
46. Gofrit, ON, Leibovici, D, Shemer, J et al. : The efficacy of integrating “smart simulated casualties” in hospital disaster drills. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1997;12:97–101.Google Scholar