Scholarlink

Background <p>Hospital emergency and contingency planning (HECP) ensure hospitals’ capability to respond to mass casualty incidents (MCI) but plans are rarely updated or practically tested.</p> Objective <p>To evaluate during a&#xa0;mandatory full-scale exercise, whether existing alerting pathways within HECP function as intended and how many off-duty staff can be contacted and mobilized within a&#xa0;defined time to build functional teams.</p> Materials and methods <p>Upon activation of the HECP, off-duty staff were called according to the HECP phone lists by a&#xa0;predefined alerting team using a&#xa0;standardized script. The team recorded reachability, hypothetical arrival times, and reasons for unavailability. The alerting interval was 60 min.</p> Results <p>Only a&#xa0;quarter of all 600 employees were registered in the HECP. Manual, sequential calling proved time-consuming; only 14% of personnel were reached within the alerting interval. Missing or wrong personal data were the reason for failure. Only 15&#xa0;employees—representing 2.4% of total staff—would be able to come to the hospital. Required qualifications were not ensured, e.g., a&#xa0;complete operating-room team, would have only been available after just over 1.5 h. Several critical functions could not be staffed.</p> Conclusion <p>Even with a&#xa0;standardized script and dichotomous responses, manual calling over limited lines is time-consuming and ineffective, tying up personnel needed for incident management and suffering from outdated contact data. Without up-to-date lists, digital/automated alerting, and a&#xa0;lived willingness to respond off duty, effective HECP implementation in MCIs is unlikely.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Krankenhausalarm- und -einsatzplanung – Alarmierung des Personals beim Massenanfall von Patienten

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月15日

查看全文
  • Marc-Michael Ventzke,
  • Axel R. Heller,
  • Gregor I. Kemming,
  • Oliver Segitz

摘要

Background

Hospital emergency and contingency planning (HECP) ensure hospitals’ capability to respond to mass casualty incidents (MCI) but plans are rarely updated or practically tested.

Objective

To evaluate during a mandatory full-scale exercise, whether existing alerting pathways within HECP function as intended and how many off-duty staff can be contacted and mobilized within a defined time to build functional teams.

Materials and methods

Upon activation of the HECP, off-duty staff were called according to the HECP phone lists by a predefined alerting team using a standardized script. The team recorded reachability, hypothetical arrival times, and reasons for unavailability. The alerting interval was 60 min.

Results

Only a quarter of all 600 employees were registered in the HECP. Manual, sequential calling proved time-consuming; only 14% of personnel were reached within the alerting interval. Missing or wrong personal data were the reason for failure. Only 15 employees—representing 2.4% of total staff—would be able to come to the hospital. Required qualifications were not ensured, e.g., a complete operating-room team, would have only been available after just over 1.5 h. Several critical functions could not be staffed.

Conclusion

Even with a standardized script and dichotomous responses, manual calling over limited lines is time-consuming and ineffective, tying up personnel needed for incident management and suffering from outdated contact data. Without up-to-date lists, digital/automated alerting, and a lived willingness to respond off duty, effective HECP implementation in MCIs is unlikely.