No abstract

ABSTRACTObjective: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the 2010 Chilean earthquake on hospital functions and services. Hospitals functioning in a post-disaster environment must provide emergency medical care related to the event, in addition to providing standard community health services. This study focused on damage to both structural and nonstructural components, as well as to utility services.Methods: Site visits were made to every hospital in a single province (Bio-Bio). Engineers conducted damage assessments while interviews of hospital administrators were conducted. The survey was requested by the Chilean Ministry of Health (MOH) to assess the impact of the earthquake on hospital operations and facility responses to those effects. Other important regional and hospital data were gathered from hospital administrators and the MOH.Results: Seven government hospitals were surveyed. All hospitals in the region lost communications, municipal electrical power and water for several days. All reported some physical damage although only one suffered significant structural damage. All lost some functional capacity as a result of the earthquake. The loss of telephones and cellular service was identified as the most difficult problem by administrators. An average of 3 physical areas per hospital lost some degree of functional capacity following the earthquake.Conclusion: Even in an earthquake-prone and very well-prepared country such as Chile hospital functions were widely disrupted by the event. The loss of hospital functions can occur even with minimal damage to the physical structure. The loss of communications can impede or halt response efforts at all levels. Hospitals should be prepared to self-sustain following a disaster for 2-3 days regardless of the level of structural damage. Understanding the details of these impacts is essential to hospital preparedness and plans for continuing services after a disaster.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2010;4:122-128)

No abstract

Introduction:Anecdotal observations about prehospital emergency medical care in major natural and human-made disasters, such as earthquakes, have suggested that some injured victims survive the initial impact, but eventually die because of a delay in the application of life-saving medical therapy.Methods:A multidisciplinary, retrospective structured interview methodology to investigate injury risk factors, and causes and circumstances of prehospital death after major disasters was developed. In this study, a team of United States researchers and Costa Rican health officials conducted a survey of lay survivors and health care professionals who participated in the emergency medical response to the earthquake in Costa Rica on 22 April 1991.Results:Fifty-four deaths occurred prior to hospitatization (crude death rate = 0.4/1,000 population). Seventeen percent of these deaths (9/54) were of casualties who survived the initial impact but died at the scene or during transport. Twenty-two percent (2/9) were judged preventable if earlier emergency medical care had been available. Most injuries and deaths occurred in victims who were inside wooden buildings (p <.O1) as opposed to other building types or were pinned by rubble from building collapse. Autopsies performed on a sample of victims showed crush injury to be the predominant cause of death.Conclusions:A substantial proportion of earthquake mortality in Costa Rica was protracted. Crush injury was the principal mechanism of injury and cause of death. The rapid institution of enhanced prehospital emergency medical services may be associated with a significant life- saving potential in these events.

Introduction:In recent years, controversy has surrounded the issue of whether infectious disease should be considered a serious potential consequence of natural disasters. This article contributes to this debate with evidence of a significant outbreak of malaria in Costa Rica's Atlantic region after the 1991 earthquake and subsequent floods. Methods: This study is an epidemiologic investigation of the incidence of malaria for the periods of 22 months before the April 1991 Limon earthquake and for 13 months afterward. Data were obtained from the Costa Rican Ministry of Health's malaria control program.Results: Some of the cantons in the region experienced increases in the incidence of malaria as high as 1,600% and 4,700% above the average monthly rate for the preearthquake period fp <0.01). Causal mechanisms are postulated as relating to changes in human behavior (increased exposure to mosquitoes while sleeping outside, and a temporary pause in malaria control activities), changes in the habitat that were beneficial to mosquito breeding (landslide deforestation, river damming, and rerouting), and the floods of August 1991. Conclusions: It is recommended that there be enhanced awareness of the potential consequences of disaster-wrought environmental changes. Date of Event: 22 April 1991; Type: Earthquake, 7.4 Richter scale; Location: Costa Rica; Number of deaths and casualties: 54 deaths and 505 moderate to severe injuries. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 1995;10(3):154-160.

In this article, evidence that health sector preparedness improves response performance in disasters was examined. Case fatality and survival data were compared for four earthquakes, in relation to health sector emergency preparedness levels. Vast differences in performance were found. The two California systems, with a high preparedness index, had low case fatality rates (about one death per 100 injuries). Kobe, Japan, with mixed levels of preparedness, had 31 deaths per 100 injuries, and Armenia (low preparedness index) had 167. Public health and health sector preparedness made a significant difference in the ability to respond effectively to meet patient needs in disasters, although it is only one of several factors that determine the health outcome of disaster victims.

No abstract

Introduction:Emergency medical services have invested substantial resources to establish advanced life support (ALS) programs. However, it is unclear whether ALS care provides better outcomes to patients compared to basic life support (BLS) care.Objective:To evaluate the current evidence regarding the benefits of ALS.Methods:Electronic medical databases were searched to identify articles that directly compared ALS versus BLS care. A total of 455 articles were found. Articles were excluded for the following reasons: (1) the article was not written in English; (2) BLS response was not compared to an ALS response; (3) a physician or nurse was included as part of the ALS response; (4) it was an aeromedical response; or (5) defibrillation was included in the ALS, but not the BLS, scope of care. Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria for this literature review.Results:Results were divided into four categories: (1) trauma; (2) cardiac arrest; (3) myocardial infarction; and (4) altered mental status.Trauma:The majority of articles showed that ALS provided no benefits over BLS in urban trauma patients. In fact, most studies showed higher mortality rates for trauma patients receiving ALS care. Further research is needed to evaluate the benefits of ALS for rural trauma patients, and whether ALS care improves outcomes in subgroups of urban trauma patients.Cardiac Arrest:Cardiac arrest studies show that early CPR plus early defibrillation provide the greatest improvement in survival. However, most cardiac arrest research includes defibrillation as an ALS skill which has now moved into the BLS scope of care. The 2004 multi-center OPALS study provided good evidence that ALS does not improve cardiac arrest survival over early defibrillation. Further research is needed to address whether any ALS interventions improve cardiac arrest outcome.Myocardial Infarction:Only one study directly compared the outcome of BLS and ALS care on myocardial infarction. The study found no difference in outcomes between BLS and ALS care in an urban setting.Advanced Life Support:Only one study directly compared the outcome of BLS and ALS care on patients with altered mental status. The study found that the same number of patients had improved to “alert” on arrival at the emergency department, but there was a decreased length of emergency department stay for patients treated by ALS for hypoglycemia.Limitations:This review article does not take into account the benefits of ALS interventions, such as thrombolytics, dextrose, or nitroglycerin, since no studies directly compared these interventions to BLS care. Furthermore, only one study in this literature review was a large, multi-center trial.Conclusions:ALS shows little, if any, benefits for urban trauma patients. Cardiac arrest studies show that ALS does not provide additional benefits over BLS-defibrillation care, but more research is needed in this area. In two small studies, ALS care did not provide benefits over BLS care for patients with myocardial infarctions or altered mental status. Larger-scale studies are needed to evaluate which specific ALS interventions improve patient outcomes.