UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Preparation for the next major incident: are we ready? Comparing major trauma centres and other hospitals

Mawhinney, JA; Roscoe, HW; Stannard, GAJ; Tillman, SR; Freemantle, N; Cosker, TD; (2021) Preparation for the next major incident: are we ready? Comparing major trauma centres and other hospitals. Emergency Medicine Journal , 38 (10) pp. 765-768. 10.1136/emermed-2020-209767. Green open access

[thumbnail of Freemantle_v4_Sugar Burns Manuscript submitted.pdf]
Preview
Text
Freemantle_v4_Sugar Burns Manuscript submitted.pdf - Accepted Version

Download (152kB) | Preview

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A major incident is any emergency requiring special arrangements by the emergency services. All hospitals are required by law to keep a major incident plan (MIP) detailing the response to such events. In 2006 and 2019, we assessed the preparedness and knowledge of key individuals in hospitals across England and found a substantial gap in responding to the MIP. In this report, we compare responses from doctors at major trauma centres (MTCs) and other hospitals (non-MTCs). METHODS: We identified trusts in England that received over 30 000 patients through the ED in the fourth quarter of 2016/2017. We contacted the on-call anaesthetic, emergency, general surgery and trauma and orthopaedic registrar at each location and asked three questions assessing their confidence in using their hospital’s MIP: (1) Have you read your hospital’s MIP? (2) Do you know where you can access your hospital’s MIP guidelines? (3) Do you know what role you would play if an MIP came into effect while you are on call? We compared data from MTCs and non-MTCs using multinomial mixed proportional odds models. RESULTS: There was a modest difference between responses from individuals at MTCs and non-MTCs for question 2 (OR=2.43, CI=1.03 to 5.73, p=0.04) but no evidence of a difference between question 1 (OR=1.41, CI=0.55 to 3.63, p=0.47) and question 3 (OR=1.78, CI=0.86 to 3.69, p=0.12). Emergency medicine and anaesthetic registrars showed significantly higher preparedness and knowledge across all domains. No evidence of a systematic difference in specialty response by MTC or otherwise was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Confidence in using MIPs among specialty registrars in England remains low. Doctors at MTCs tended to be better prepared and more knowledgeable, but this effect was only marginally significant. We make several recommendations to improve education on major incidents.

Type: Article
Title: Preparation for the next major incident: are we ready? Comparing major trauma centres and other hospitals
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2020-209767
Publisher version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-209767
Language: English
Additional information: This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions.
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology > Comprehensive CTU at UCL
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10136129
Downloads since deposit
0Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item