The Summerland Disaster.

Hart, Roland J.; Lee, J O; Boyles, D. J.; Batey, Natalie

doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5952.256

Cited by 26 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, all of the intubated patients displayed one or more physical findings suggesting respiratory tract injury. Except for the Volendam fire [35], in nearly all previous described indoor fires, most deaths were caused by inhalation injury or high concentration of toxics and less due to severe burns [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. Additionally, the intubated patients were of older age, which is an independent major risk factor for mortality [44][45][46][47][48].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indoor fire in a nursing home: evaluation of the medical response to a mass casualty incident based on a standardized protocol

Koning

Ellerbroek

Leenen

2014

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This retrospective study reports the outcome of a mass casualty incident (MCI) caused by a fire in a nursing home. Methods Data from the medical charts and registration system of the Major Incident Hospital (MIH) and ambulance service were analyzed. The evaluation reports from the MIH and an independent research institute were used. The protocol for reports from major accidents and disaster was used to standardize the reporting [Lennquist, in Int J Disaster Med 1(1): [79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86] 2003]. Results The emergency services were quickly at the scene. The different levels of pre-hospital management performed a tight coordination. However, miscommunication led to confusion in the registration and tracking of patients. In total, 49 persons needed medical treatment, 46 were treated in the MIH. Because of (possible) inhalation injury nine patients needed mechanical ventilation and nine patients were hospitalized to exclude delayed onset of pulmonary symptoms. No incident related deaths occurred. The intensive care unit of the MIH was initially understaffed despite the efforts of the automated calling system and switchboard operators. The handwritten registration of incoming staff was incomplete and should be performed digitally. Some staff members were unfamiliar with the MIH procedures. The medical chart appeared too extensive. Miscommunication between chain partners resulted in the delayed sharing of (semi) medical information. Conclusion The different levels of incident managers performed a tight coordination. The MIH demonstrated its potency to provide emergency care for 46 patients and 9 intubated patients. No deaths or persistent disabilities occurred. Areas of improvement were recognized both in the pre-hospital as the hospital phase.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indoor fire in a nursing home: evaluation of the medical response to a mass casualty incident based on a standardized protocol

Koning

Ellerbroek

Leenen

2014

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…53 Identification and tracking of patients proved difficult with the establishment of an information dissemination office being delayed. 52 The Summer/and Fire, UK, 1973 55 Injury/Death Toll-There were 48 deaths on arrival to the hospital, with two deaths (4.2%) occurring nine days postadmission. A further 102 patients were transported to the hospital, with 32 (13.4%) requiring admission.…”

Section: Non-burn Injuries-at Gregorio Maranon Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Burn Disasters—An Audit of the Literature

Broeze

Falder

Rea

et al. 2010

Prehosp. Disaster med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All events that result in disasters are unique, and it is impossible to become fully prepared. However, through thorough planning and preparedness, it is possible to gain a better understanding of the typical injury patterns and problems that arise from a variety of hazards. Such events have the potential to claim many lives and overwhelm local medical resources. Burn disasters vary in scope of injury and procedures required, and are much more labor and resource intensive than non-burn disasters.This review of the literature should help determine whether, despite each event having its own unique features, there still are common problems disaster responders face in the prehospital and hospital phases, what recommendations were made from these disasters, and whether these recommendations have been implemented into practice and the current disaster planning processes.The objective of this review was to assess: (1) prehospital and hospital responses used during past burn disasters; (2) problems faced during those disaster responses; (3) recommendations made following those disasters; (4) whether these recommendations were integrated into practice; and (5) the key characteristics of burn disasters and how they differ from other disasters. This review is important to determine why, despite having disaster plans, things still go wrong.

show abstract

“…In addition, the majority of rescue workers are not used to dealing with burn patients, and adequate facilities for the examination of the injured, such as shelter and lighting, may be absent. Therefore, in most fire disasters, the main focus at the scene is on transportation of the victims ("scoop and run" strategy) (3,8,14). Most Emergency Department (ED) personnel have little or no experience in dealing with many patients with burn injuries either.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disasters involving multiple burn victims are common (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11). The sudden presentation of many burn patients simultaneously may overwhelm medical facilities and necessitate the adoption of selection criteria to determine treatment priorities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%