In the event of a large-scale terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other public health emergency, hospitals could not absorb the thousands of victims generated by the catastrophe. Even if hospitals can increase bed capacity by 20% to 30%, as some suggest, the problem of staffing these beds remains unresolved. One possibility is to rapidly increase hospital staff by providing emergency credentialing to volunteer health care professionals. Several organizations and systems currently exist that can deliver medical providers to a stricken area. Unfortunately, all of these have serious limitations that would make it difficult for hospitals to use the health care workers provided by such entities. We propose a unique concept that will allow hospitals to rapidly expand their staff with practitioners that meet their credentialing requirements. The concept is a database created by each hospital in a community that includes credentialed physicians, nurses, behavioral health professionals, and ancillary staff. The database will be limited to physicians with full privileges and all licensed hospital employees in good standing not currently facing disciplinary issues or practice restrictions. The individual databases would then be combined and stored on a single computer system housed at the county health care agency or other mutually acceptable organization, with copies sent back to participating hospitals and the state. After a large disaster, health care workers from unaffected areas, including other states, can approach affected hospitals and volunteer their services. Practitioners listed on the database could be given privileges in their specialties for 72 hours. This process is accurate, inexpensive, efficient, sustainable, and Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations compliant and permits the immediate credentialing of large numbers of medical volunteers.

As recent events highlight, a global requirement exists for evidence-based training in the emerging field of Disaster Medicine. The following is an example of an International Disaster Medical Sciences Fellowship created to fill this need. We provide here a program description, including educational goals and objectives and a model core curriculum based on current evidence-based literature. In addition, we describe the administrative process to establish the fellowship. Information about this innovative educational program is valuable to international Disaster Medicine scholars, as well as U.S. institutions seeking to establish formal training in Disaster Medical Sciences.

[West J Emerg Med. 2009;10(4):213-219]

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The mass casualty triage system known as simple triage and rapid treatment (START) has been widely used in the United States since the 1980s. However, no outcomes assessment has been conducted after a disaster to determine whether assigned triage levels match patients' actual clinical status. Researchers hypothesize that START achieves at least 90% sensitivity and specificity for each triage level and ensures that the most critical patients are transported first to area hospitals. METHODS: The performance of START was evaluated at a train crash disaster in 2003. Patient field triage categories and scene times were obtained from county reports. Patient medical records were then reviewed at all receiving hospitals. Victim arrival times were obtained and correct triage categories determined a priori using a combination of the modified Baxt criteria and hospital admission. Field and outcomes-based triage categories were compared, defining the appropriateness of each triage assignment. RESULTS: Investigators reviewed 148 records at 14 receiving hospitals. Field triage designations comprised 22 red (immediate), 68 yellow (delayed), and 58 green (minor) patients. Outcomes-based designations found 2 red, 26 yellow, and 120 green patients. Seventy-nine patients were overtriaged, 3 were undertriaged, and 66 patients' outcomes matched their triage level. No triage level met both the 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity requirement set forth in the hypothesis, although red was 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 16% to 100%) and green was 89.3% specific (95% CI 72% to 98%). The Obuchowski statistic was 0.81, meaning that victims from a higher-acuity outcome group had an 81% chance of assignment to a higher-acuity triage category. The median arrival time for red patients was more than 1 hour earlier than the other patients. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates poor agreement between triage levels assigned by START at a train crash and a priori outcomes criteria for each level. START ensured acceptable levels of undertriage (100% red sensitivity and 89% green specificity) but incorporated a substantial amount of overtriage. START proved useful in prioritizing transport of the most critical patients to area hospitals first.

Study objective: Over large expanses, the risk for hospital damage from an earthquake attenuates as the distance from the epicenter increases, which may not be true within the immediate disaster zone (near field), however. The following study examines the impact of epicenter distance and ground motion on hospital evacuation and closure for those structures near the epicenter of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake and the implications for patient evacuation.

Methods: This is a retrospective case-control study of all hospitals reporting off-site evacuations or permanent closure because of damage from the January 17, 1994, earthquake in Northridge, CA. Control hospitals were randomly identified from those facilities that did not evacuate patients. Distances from the epicenter and peak ground accelerations were calculated for each hospital from Trinet ShakeMap data and compared.

Results: Eight hospitals evacuated patients (study group); 4 of these hospitals were condemned. These were compared to 8 hospitals that did not evacuate patients (control group). The median epicenter-to-hospital distance for evacuated facilities was 8.1 miles (interquartile range [IQRs] 4.0 to 17.2 miles), whereas that for nonevacuated facilities was 14.1 miles (IRQ 10.5 to 17.0 miles). The difference in the median distances was 6.0 miles (95% confidence interval -4.8 to 11.9 miles). The peak ground acceleration had a median of 0.77g (IQR 0.53 to 0.85g) for study hospitals and a median of 0.36g (IQR 0.24 to 0.50g) for control hospitals, where 1g equals the force of gravity. The difference in median acceleration of 0.41g (95% Cl 0.14 to 0.55g) was significant (P=.009).

Conclusion: The distances from the epicenter for evacuated or condemned facilities and control hospitals do not appear to differ in the near field. Peak ground acceleration is a superior indicator of the risk for hospital damage and evacuation. Physicians can obtain these data in real time from the Internet and should transfer patients to facilities in areas of lower recorded peak ground acceleration regardless of distance from the epicenter.