Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:35:55.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

(P2-7) Patient Distribution during a Mass-Casualty Incident: The 25 February 2009 Turkish Airlines Crash in Amsterdam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2011

I.L.E. Postma
Affiliation:
Trauma Unit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
H. Weel
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
M. Heetveld
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Haarlem, Netherlands
F. Bloemers
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
T. Bijlsma
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Hoofddorp, Netherlands
J.C. Goslings
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background

Difficulties have been reported in patient distribution during mass-casualty incidents (MCIs). In this retrospective, descriptive study, the regional Patient Distribution Protocol (PDP) and the management of the patient distribution after the Turkish Airlines airplane crash on 25 February 2009 near Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam were analyzed.

Methods

Analysis of the of PDP involving the 126 surviving victims of the crash, by collecting data on Medical Treatment Capacity (MTC), number of patients received per hospital, triage classification, Injury Severity Scale (ISS) score, secondary transfers, distance from the crash site, and critical mortality rate.

Results

The PDP holds two inconsistent definitions of MTC. The PDP was not followed. Four hospitals received 133–213% of their MTC, and five hospitals received one patient. There were 14 receiving hospitals (distance from crash: 5.8–53.5 km); thre hospitals within 20 km of the crash did not receive any patients. Major trauma centers received 89% of the “critical” casualties and 92% of the casualties with ISS score ≥ 16. They also received 10% of “minor” casualties and 29% of casualties with ISS score < 8. Only three patients were secondarily transferred, and no casualties died in, or on the way to, the hospital (critical mortality rate = 0%).

Conclusions

Patient distribution was effective, as secondary transfers were low, and the critical mortality rate was zero. The regional PDP could not be followed during this MCI. Uneven casualty distribution was seen in the hospitals. The regional PDP is inconsistent, and should be updated in a new cooperation between Emergency Services, surrounding hospitals and vSchiphol Airport, a high risk area, for which area-specific PDPs must be designed.

Type
Poster Abstracts 17th World Congress for Disaster and Emergency Medicine
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2011