Luciana A Rocha1, Catharine Q Fromknecht1, Sarah Davis Redman2, Joanne E Brady3, Sarah E Hodge1, Rebecca S Noe4. 1. NORC at the University of Chicago - Public Health Research, Roles: Data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, writing assistance and/or technical editing. 2. NORC at the University of Chicago - Public Health Research, Roles: Project conception and/or design, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, principal investigator of the current study, general supervision. 3. NORC at the University of Chicago - Public Health Research, Roles: Data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, general supervision. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - National Center for Environmental Health, Roles: Project conception and/or design, manuscript creation and/or revision, approved final version for publication, accountable for all aspects of the work, principal investigator of the current study.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of disaster-related deaths recorded by vital statistics departments often differs from that reported by other agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Weather Service storm database and the American Red Cross. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has launched an effort to improve disaster-related death scene investigation reporting practices to make data more comparable across jurisdictions, improve accuracy of reporting disaster-related deaths, and enhance identification of risk and protective factors. We conducted a literature review to examine how death scene data are collected and how such data are used to determine disaster relatedness. METHODS: Two analysts conducted a parallel search using Google and Google Scholar. We reviewed published peer-reviewed articles and unpublished documents including relevant forms, protocols, and worksheets from coroners, medical examiners, and death scene investigators. RESULTS: We identified 177 documents: 32 published peer-reviewed articles and 145 other documents (grey literature). Published articles suggested no consistent approach for attributing deaths to a disaster. Researchers generally depended on death certificates to identify disaster-related deaths; several studies also drew on supplemental sources, including medical examiner, coroner, and active surveillance reports. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the critical importance of consistent, accurate data collection during a death investigation. Review of the grey literature found variation in use of death scene data collection tools, indicating the potential for widespread inconsistency in data captured for routine reporting and public health surveillance. Findings from this review will be used to develop guidelines and tools for capturing disaster-related death investigation data.
BACKGROUND: The number of disaster-related deaths recorded by vital statistics departments often differs from that reported by other agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Weather Service storm database and the American Red Cross. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has launched an effort to improve disaster-related death scene investigation reporting practices to make data more comparable across jurisdictions, improve accuracy of reporting disaster-related deaths, and enhance identification of risk and protective factors. We conducted a literature review to examine how death scene data are collected and how such data are used to determine disaster relatedness. METHODS: Two analysts conducted a parallel search using Google and Google Scholar. We reviewed published peer-reviewed articles and unpublished documents including relevant forms, protocols, and worksheets from coroners, medical examiners, and death scene investigators. RESULTS: We identified 177 documents: 32 published peer-reviewed articles and 145 other documents (grey literature). Published articles suggested no consistent approach for attributing deaths to a disaster. Researchers generally depended on death certificates to identify disaster-related deaths; several studies also drew on supplemental sources, including medical examiner, coroner, and active surveillance reports. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the critical importance of consistent, accurate data collection during a death investigation. Review of the grey literature found variation in use of death scene data collection tools, indicating the potential for widespread inconsistency in data captured for routine reporting and public health surveillance. Findings from this review will be used to develop guidelines and tools for capturing disaster-related death investigation data.
Entities:
Keywords:
Forensic pathology; Mass fatality management; Medical examiners and coroners; Medicolegal death investigation; Mortality surveillance; Natural disaster
Authors: Renata E Howland; Wenhui Li; Ann M Madsen; Howard Wong; Tara Das; Flor M Betancourt; Leze Nicaj; Catherine Stayton; Thomas Matte; Elizabeth M Begier Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Shahed Iqbal; Jacquelyn H Clower; Sandra A Hernandez; Scott A Damon; Fuyuen Y Yip Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Anindita N Issa; Kelly Baker; Derek Pate; Royal Law; Tesfaye Bayleyegn; Rebecca S Noe Journal: Prehosp Disaster Med Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.040
Authors: Meilin Yan; Ander Wilson; Jennifer L Peel; Sheryl Magzamen; Qinghua Sun; Tiantian Li; G Brooke Anderson Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: G Brooke Anderson; Joshua Ferreri; Mohammad Al-Hamdan; William Crosson; Andrea Schumacher; Seth Guikema; Steven Quiring; Dirk Eddelbuettel; Meilin Yan; Roger D Peng Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 9.031