ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Mass-casualty incidents (MCIs), specifically incidents with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents (CBRN) or terrorist attacks, challenge medical coordination, rescue, availability, and adequate provision of prehospital and hospital-based emergency care. In the Netherlands, a new model for Mass Casualty and Disaster Management (MCDM) along with a Terror Attack Mitigation Approach (TAMA) was introduced in 2016. STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide insight in the first experiences of health policy advisors and managers with a medical rescue coordinator and ambulance nursing background regarding the new MCDM and TAMA in order to identify strengths and pitfalls in emergency preparedness and to provide recommendations for improvement. METHODS: The study had a qualitative design and was performed from January 2017 through June 2018. Purposeful sampling was used and the inclusion comprehended health policy advisors and managers with a medical rescue coordinator and ambulance nursing background involved in emergency preparedness. The respondents were interviewed semi-structured and the researchers used a topic list that was based on the literature and content of the newly introduced model and approach. All interviews were typed out verbatim and qualitative content analyzing was used in order to identify relevant themes. RESULTS: Respondents based their perceptions on large-scale training exercises, as MCDM and TAMA were not yet used during MCIs. Perceived issues of MCDM were the two-tiered triage system, the change in focus from "stay and play" towards "scoop and run," difficulties with new tasks and roles of professionals, and improvement in material provision. Regarding TAMA, all respondents supported the principles (do the most for the most; scoop and run; acceptable personal risk; never walk alone; and standard operational procedure); however, the definitions were lacking clarity while the awareness of optimal personal safety of professionals was absent.As there are currently regional differences in the level of implementation of MCDM and TAMA, this may pose a risk for an optimal inter-regional collaboration. CONCLUSION: The conclusions refer to experiences of professionals in the Netherlands. Elements of the MCDM and TAMA were highly appreciated and seemed to improve emergency preparedness, while other aspects needed further attention, training, and integration in daily routine. The Netherlands' MCDM model and TAMA will need continuous systematic evaluation based on (inter)national performance criteria in order to underpin the useful and effective elements and to improve the observed pitfalls in emergency preparedness.
