Citation

Haverkort JJM, Leenen LPH. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2017; 11(5): 594-599.

Affiliation

1Major Incident Hospital,University Medical Centre Utrecht,Utrecht,Netherlands.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Publisher Cambridge University Press)

DOI

10.1017/dmp.2016.179

PMID

29129187

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Presently used evaluation techniques rely on 3 traditional dimensions: reports from observers, registration system data, and observational cameras. Some of these techniques are observer-dependent and are not reproducible for a second review. This proof-of-concept study aimed to test the feasibility of extending evaluation to a fourth dimension, the patient's perspective.

METHODS: Footage was obtained during a large, full-scale hospital trauma drill. Two mock victims were equipped with point-of-view cameras filming from the patient's head. Based on the Major Incident Hospital's first experience during the drill, a protocol was developed for a prospective, standardized method to evaluate a hospital's major incident response from the patient's perspective. The protocol was then tested in a second drill for its feasibility.

RESULTS: New insights were gained after review of the footage. The traditional observer missed some of the evaluation points, which were seen on the point-of-view cameras. The information gained from the patient's perspective proved to be implementable into the designed protocol.

CONCLUSION: Use of point-of-view camera recordings from a mock patient's perspective is a valuable addition to traditional evaluation of trauma drills and trauma care. Protocols should be designed to optimize and objectify judgement of such footage. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:594-599).

Language: en

Keywords

disaster medicine; evaluation; mass casualty incidents; observer variation; patient perspective