Literature DB >> 23683832

Mass casualty triage after an airplane crash near Amsterdam.

Ingri L E Postma1, Hanneke Weel, Martin J Heetveld, Ineke van der Zande, Taco S Bijlsma, Frank W Bloemers, J Carel Goslings.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Triage is an important aspect of the management of mass casualty incidents. This study describes the triage after the Turkish Airlines Crash near Amsterdam in 2009. The results of the triage and the injuries of P3 casualties were evaluated. In addition, the role of the trauma mechanism and its effect on spinal immobilisation during transport was analysed.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of investigational reports, ambulance forms, and medical charts of survivors of the crash. Outcomes were triage classification, type of injury, AIS, ISS, emergency interventions and the spinal immobilisation during transport.
RESULTS: A minimal documentation of prehospital triage was found, and no exact numbers could be recollected. During inhospital triage 28% was triaged as P1, 10% had an ISS ≥ 16 and 3% met the modified Baxt criteria for emergency intervention. 40% was triaged P3, 72% had an ISS ≤ 8 and 63% was discharged from the Emergency Department after evaluation. In hospital over-triage was up to 89%. Critical mortality rate was 0%. Nine per cent of P3 casualties and 17% of 'walking' casualties had serious injuries. Twenty-two per cent of all casualties was transported with spinal immobilisation. Of the casualties diagnosed with spinal injury 22% was not transported with spinal immobilisation.
CONCLUSION: After the Turkish Airlines Crash documentation of prehospital triage was minimal. According to the Baxt criteria the overtriage was high. Injuries sustained by plane crash survivors that seem minimally harmed must not be underestimated. Considering the high energy trauma mechanism, too little consideration was given to spinal immobilisation during transport.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23683832     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.03.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  4 in total

1.  Radiological work-up after mass casualty incidents: are ATLS guidelines applicable?

Authors:  Ingri L E Postma; L F M Beenen; T S Bijlsma; F H Berger; M J Heetveld; F W Bloemers; J C Goslings
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Problems in the management of mass casualties in the Tianjin explosion.

Authors:  Hong-Yu Wang; Hai Yan Wu
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 9.097

3.  Comparison between simple triage and rapid treatment and Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale for the emergency department triage of victims following an earthquake-related mass casualty incident: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Yun-Kuan Lin; Kuang-Yu Niu; Chen-June Seak; Yi-Ming Weng; Jen-Hung Wang; Pei-Fang Lai
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 5.469

4.  The BCD Triage Sieve outperforms all existing major incident triage tools: Comparative analysis using the UK national trauma registry population.

Authors:  Nabeela S Malik; Saisakul Chernbumroong; Yuanwei Xu; James Vassallo; Justine Lee; Douglas M Bowley; Timothy Hodgetts; Christopher G Moran; Janet M Lord; Antonio Belli; Damian Keene; Mark Foster; Georgios V Gkoutos
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2021-05-15
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.