We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In the United States (US), hospitals are required to have disaster plans and stage drills to test these plans in order to satisfy the Joint Accreditation Commission of Healthcare Organizations. The focus of this drill was to test if emergency response personnel, both prehospital and hospital, would identify a patient with a potentially communicable infectious disease, and activate their respective disaster plan.
Methods:
Twelve urban/suburban emergency departments (ED) received patients via car and ambulance. Patients were moulaged to imitate a smallpox infection. Observers with checklists recorded what happened. The drill's endpoints were: (1) predetermined end time; (2) identification of the patient and hospital “lock-down”; and (3) breach of drill protocol.
Results:
None of the ambulance personnel correctly identified their patients. Of the total 13 mock patients assessed in the ED, seven (54%) were identified by the ED staff as possibly being infected with a highly contagious agent and, in turn, the hospital's bio-agent protocol was initiated. Of the correctly identified patients, five (71%) were placed in isolation, and the remaining two (29%), although not isolated, were identified prior to their ED discharge and the appropriate protocol was activated. The six remaining mock patients (46%) were incorrectly diagnosed and discharged. Of the hospitals that had correctly identified their “infected” patients, only two (29%) followed their notification protocol and contacted the local health department.
Conclusion:
This drill was successful in identifying this area's shortcomings, highlighted positive reactions, and raised some interesting questions about the ability to detect a patient with a possibly highly contagious disease.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.