Citation

Smart CJ, Maconochie I. Prehosp. Disaster Med. 2008; 23(1): 70-75.

Affiliation

TSG Associates Ltd, Leeds, West Yorkshire, England. colin@smartmci.com

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Cambridge University Press)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

18491665

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The decision to declare a major incident (MI) is not one to be taken lightly, but a delay in doing so may have dire consequences. The aim of this study was to ascertain what factors make specialists from a variety of professional backgrounds in the United Kingdom determine from an initial visual assessment of a scene that a MI should be declared. METHODS: Participants were presented with three different scenarios, which were presented pictorially. Their responses were noted. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-eight professionals took part in this study. For Scenario 1 (a road traffic incident), 101 (57%) declared a MI. For a coach rollover in Scenario 2, a MI was declared by 82 (46%) people, and a MI was declared by 156 (87%) for a rail crash in Scenario 3. Forty-six participants had attended a MI previously. The results for declaring a MI in this group were: (1) Scenario 1, 25 (54%); (2) Scenario 2, 25 (54%); and (3) Scenario 3, 44 (96%). Of this group, 44 had previously had training before experiencing the MI. Those who had>or = 10 years of service in emergency services were more likely to declare a MI in Scenario 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: The main problem with the existing system is the interpretation and subjective nature of the word "major". Specialists incorporate many individual factors into using the word. Future research should focus on the development of a system tied to more objective analysis.

Language: en