Anders Rüter

Objective: The objective of this study was to highlight 2 models, the Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) and the Disaster Management Indicator model (DiMI), for evaluating the in-hospital management of a disaster situation through simulation exercises.Methods: Two disaster exercises, A and B, with similar scenarios were performed. Both exercises were evaluated with regard to actions, processes, and structures. After the exercises, the results were calculated and compared.Results: In exercise A the HICS model indicated that 32% of the required positions for the immediate phase were taken under consideration with an average performance of 70%. For exercise B, the corresponding scores were 42% and 68%, respectively. According to the DiMI model, the results for exercise A were a score of 68% for management processes and 63% for management structure (staff skills). In B the results were 77% and 86%, respectively.Conclusions: Both models demonstrated acceptable results in relation to previous studies. More research in this area is needed to validate which of these methods best evaluates disaster preparedness based on simulation exercises or whether the methods are complementary and should therefore be used together. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:544–548).

Registration of data from a major incident or disaster serves several purposes such as to record data for evaluation of response as well as for research. Data needed can often be retrieved after an incident while other must be recorded during the incident. There is a need for a consensus on what is essential to record from a disaster response. The aim of this study was to identify key indicators essential for initial disaster medical response registration. By this is meant nationally accepted processes involved, from the time of the emergency call to the emergency medical communication centre until medical care is provided at the emergency department.

Disaster medicine is a fairly young scientific discipline and there is a need for the development of new methods for evaluation and research. This includes full-scale disaster exercisers. A standardized concept on how to evaluate these exercises, could lead to easier identification of pitfalls caused by system-errors in the organization. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of using a combination of performance and outcome indicators so that results can be compared in standardized full-scale exercises. Two multidisciplinary, full-scale exercises were studied in 2008 and 2010. The panorama had the same setup. Sets of performance indicators combined with indicators for unfavorable patient outcome were recorded in predesigned templates. Evaluators, all trained in a standardized way at a national disaster medicine centre, scored the results on predetermined locations; at the scene, at hospital and at the regional command and control. All data regarding the performance indicators of the participants during the exercises were obtained as well as all data regarding indicators for patient outcome. Both exercises could therefore be compared regarding performance (processes) as well as outcome indicators. The data from the performance indicators during the exercises showed higher scores for the prehospital command in the second exercise 15 points and 3 points respectively. Results from the outcome indicators, patient survival and patient complications, demonstrated a higher number of preventable deaths and a lower number of preventable complications in the exercise 2010. In the exercise 2008 the number of preventable deaths was lower and the number of preventable complications was higher. Standardized multidisciplinary, full-scale exercises in different settings can be conducted and evaluated with performance indicators combined with outcome indicators enabling results from exercises to be compared. If exercises are performed in a standardized way, results may serve as a basis for lessons learned. Future use of the same concept using the combination of performance indicators and patient outcome indicators may demonstrate new and important evidence that could lead to new and better knowledge that also may be applied during real incidents.