Oslo government district bombing and Utøya island shooting July 22, 2011: The immediate prehospital emergency medical service response

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>On July 22, 2011, a single perpetrator killed 77 people in a car bomb attack and a shooting spree incident in Norway. This article describes the emergency medical service (EMS) response elicited by the two incidents.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective and observational study was conducted based on data from the EMS systems involved and the public domain. The study was approved by the Data Protection Official and was defined as a quality improvement project.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We describe the timeline and logistics of the EMS response, focusing on alarm, dispatch, initial response, triage and evacuation. The scenes in the Oslo government district and at Utøya island are described separately.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Many EMS units were activated and effectively used despite the occurrence of two geographically separate incidents within a short time frame. Important lessons were learned regarding triage and evacuation, patient flow and communication, the use of and need for emergency equipment and the coordination of helicopter EMS.</p

A concept for major incident triage: full-scaled simulation feasibility study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Efficient management of major incidents involves triage, treatment and transport. In the absence of a standardised interdisciplinary major incident management approach, the Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation developed Interdisciplinary Emergency Service Cooperation Course (TAS). The TAS-program was established in 1998 and by 2009, approximately 15 500 emergency service professionals have participated in one of more than 500 no-cost courses. The TAS-triage concept is based on the established triage Sieve and Paediatric Triage Tape models but modified with slap-wrap reflective triage tags and paediatric triage stretchers. We evaluated the feasibility and accuracy of the TAS-triage concept in full-scale simulated major incidents.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The learners participated in two standardised bus crash simulations: without and with competence of TAS-triage and access to TAS-triage equipment. The instructors calculated triage accuracy and measured time consumption while the learners participated in a self-reported before-after study. Each question was scored on a 7-point Likert scale with points labelled "Did not work" (1) through "Worked excellent" (7).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among the 93 (85%) participating emergency service professionals, 48% confirmed the existence of a major incident triage system in their service, whereas 27% had access to triage tags. The simulations without TAS-triage resulted in a mean over- and undertriage of 12%. When TAS-Triage was used, no mistriage was found. The average time from "scene secured to all patients triaged" was 22 minutes (range 15-32) without TAS-triage vs. 10 minutes (range 5-21) with TAS-triage. The participants replied to "How did interdisciplinary cooperation of triage work?" with mean 4,9 (95% CI 4,7-5,2) before the course vs. mean 5,8 (95% CI 5,6-6,0) after the course, p < 0,001.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our modified triage Sieve tool is feasible, time-efficient and accurate in allocating priority during simulated bus accidents and may serve as a candidate for a future national standard for major incident triage.</p

Calculating trauma triage precision: effects of different definitions of major trauma

BACKGROUND: Triage is the process of classifying patients according to injury severity and determining the priority for further treatment. Although the term “major trauma” represents the reference against which over- and undertriage rates are calculated, its definition is inconsistent in the current literature. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different definitions of major trauma on the calculation of perceived over- and undertriage rates in a Norwegian trauma cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients included in the trauma registry of a primary, referral trauma centre. Two “traditional” definitions were developed based on anatomical injury severity scores (ISS >15 and NISS >15), one “extended” definition was based on outcome (30-day mortality) and mechanism of injury (proximal penetrating injury), one ”extensive” definition was based on the “extended” definition and on ICU resource consumption (admitted to the ICU for >2 days and/or transferred intubated out of the hospital in ≤2 days), and an additional four definitions were based on combinations of the first four. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the perceived under- and overtriage rates between the two “traditional” definitions (NISS >15 and ISS >15). Adding “extended” and “extensive” to the “traditional” definitions also did not significantly alter perceived under- and overtriage. Defining major trauma only in terms of the mechanism of injury and mortality, with or without ICU resource consumption (the “extended” and “extensive” groups), drastically increased the perceived overtriage rates. CONCLUSION: Although the proportion of patients who were defined as having sustained major trauma increased when NISS-based definitions were substituted for ISS-based definitions, the outcomes of the triage precision calculations did not differ significantly between the two scales. Additionally, expanding the purely anatomic definition of major trauma by including proximal penetrating injury, 30-day mortality, ICU LOS greater than 2 days and transferred intubated out of the hospital at ≤2 days did not significantly influence the perceived triage precision. We recommend that triage precision calculations should include anatomical injury scaling according to NISS. To further enhance comparability of trauma triage calculations, researchers should establish a consensus on a uniform definition of major trauma

Utilisation of helicopter emergency medical services in the early medical response to major incidents: A systematic literature review

Objective: This systematic review identifies, describes and appraises the literature describing the utilisation of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in the early medical response to major incidents. Setting: Early prehospital phase of a major incident. Design: Systematic literature review performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cinahl, Bibsys Ask, Norart, Svemed and UpToDate were searched using phrases that combined HEMS and ‘major incidents’ to identify when and how HEMS was utilised. The identified studies were subjected to data extraction and appraisal. Results: The database search identified 4948 articles. Based on the title and abstract, the full text of 96 articles was obtained; of these, 37 articles were included in the review, and an additional five were identified by searching the reference lists of the 37 articles. HEMS was used to transport medical and rescue personnel to the incident and to transport patients to the hospital, especially when the infrastructure was damaged. Insufficient air traffic control, weather conditions, inadequate landing sites and failing communication were described as challenging in some incidents. Conclusions: HEMS was used mainly for patient treatment and to transport patients, personnel and equipment in the early medical management of major incidents, but the optimal utilisation of this specialised resource remains unclear. This review identified operational areas with improvement potential. A lack of systematic indexing, heterogeneous data reporting and weak methodological design, complicated the identification and comparison of incidents, and more systematic reporting is needed

EHAC medical working group best practice advice on the role of air rescue and pre hospital critical care at major incidents

Background: Helicopter EMS (HEMS) teams may perform a variety of clinical, managerial and transport functions during major incident management. Despite national and international variations in HEMS systems, the rapid delivery of HEMS personnel with advanced skills in major incident management and clinical scene leadership has been crucial to the delivery of an effective medical response at previous incidents. This document outlines the Best Practice Advice of the European HEMS and Air Ambulance Committee (EHAC) Medical Working Group on how HEMS and Pre Hospital Critical Care teams may maximise the positive impact of their resources in the event of Major Incidents. Methods: Narrative literature review and expert consensus. Results: To ensure a safe, coordinated and effective response, HEMS teams require suitable, proportionate and up to date major incident plans that are integrated into the major incident plans of other regional emergency and healthcare services. Role specific protocols, training and equipment should be adapted to the expected HEMS role in the major incident plan and likely regional threats. System and incident factors will influence HEMS utilisation during the major incident response and can include patient and staff transfer, equipment resupply, aerial assessment, search and rescue, clinical leadership and advanced care. During the recovery phase of a major incident there is a need to ensure restoration of conventional service and address the welfare of involved HEMS personnel. Standardised reporting of major incidents is strongly recommended for clinical governance, legal and research reasons. Conclusions: The rapid delivery of HEMS personnel with advanced skills in Major Incident management and clinical scene leadership is crucial to the delivery of an effective medical response at Major Incidents

Major incident management by helicopter emergency medical services in south-east Norway from 2000 to 2016: Retrospective cohort study

Background Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) and search and rescue helicopters (SAR) aim to bring specialized personnel to major incidents and transport patients to definite care, but their operational pattern remains poorly described. We aim to describe the use of HEMS and SAR in major incidents in Norway and investigate the feasibility of retrospectively collecting uniform data from incident reports. Methods We searched HEMS medical databases from three HEMS and one SAR base in south‐east Norway for the written reports of incidents from 2000 to 2016. After incidents were included through consensus in the author group, we collected data as described in majorincidentreporting.org and a previous cross‐sectional study and rated availability of the variables. Results From a total of 31 803 missions, we identified 50 (0.16%) major incidents with HEMS/SAR involvement where road traffic accidents were the most common type of incident (n = 28, 56%), and rural area was the most prevalent location (n = 35, 70%). Inter‐agency cooperation was common and HEMS contributed most often with treatment and transport. The majority of information was found in the free‐text area in the medical records hereby increasing the risk for rater variability. Conclusion Major incidents are rare in Norway. HEMS and SAR play an important role in incident logistics, cooperation with other agencies, treatment and transport of patients and should be included in major incident plans. Retrospective data collection is challenging as data variables are not systematically integrated into the database. Future research should focus on systematic data gathering and a system for sharing lessons learned