Roy Nobhojit, Shah Hemant, Patel Vikas, Coughlin R Richard
BARC Hospital, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai, India.
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2002 Oct-Dec;17(4):186-95. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x00000480.
At 08:53 hours on 26 January 2001, an earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale devastated a large, drought-affected area of northwestern India, the state of Gujarat. The known number killed by the earthquake is 20,005, with 166,000 injured, of whom 20,717 were "seriously" injured. About 370,000 houses were destroyed, and another 922,000 were damaged.
A community health worker using the local language interviewed all of the patients admitted to the Gandhi-Lincoln hospital with an on-site, oral, real-time, Victim Specific Questionnaire (VSQ).
The census showed a predominance of women, children, and young adults, with the average age being 28 years. The majority of the patients had other family members who were also injured (84%), but most had not experienced deaths among family members (86%). Most of the patients (91%) had traveled more than 200 kilometers using their family cars, pick-ups, trucks, or buses to reach the buffer zone hospitals. The daily hospital admission rate returned to pre-event levels five days after the event, and all of the hospital services were restored by nine days after the quake. Most of the patients (83%) received definitive treatment in the buffer zone hospitals; 7% were referred to tertiary-care centers; and 9% took discharge against medical advice. The entrapped village folk with their traditional architecture had lesser injuries and a higher rescue rate than did the semi-urban townspeople, who were trapped in collapsed concrete masonry buildings and narrow alleys. However, at the time of crisis, aware townspeople were able to tap the available health resources better than were the poor. There was a low incidence of crush injuries. Volunteer doctors from various backgrounds teamed up to meet the medical crisis. International relief agencies working through local groups were more effective. Local relief groups needed to coordinate better. Disaster tourism by various well-meaning agencies took a toll on the providers. Many surgeries may have contributed to subsequent morbidity.
The injury profile was similar to that reported for most other daytime earthquakes. Buffer zone treatment outcomes were better than were the field and damaged hospital outcomes.
2001年1月26日08:53，一场里氏6.9级地震摧毁了印度西北部遭受旱灾的大片地区古吉拉特邦。已知地震造成的死亡人数为20,005人，166,000人受伤，其中20,717人“伤势严重”。约370,000所房屋被摧毁，另有922,000所房屋受损。
一名社区卫生工作者使用当地语言，通过现场口头实时的针对受害者的特定问卷（VSQ）对所有入住甘地 - 林肯医院的患者进行了访谈。
普查显示女性、儿童和年轻人占多数，平均年龄为28岁。大多数患者有其他家庭成员也受伤（84%），但大多数患者的家庭成员中没有死亡情况（86%）。大多数患者（91%）乘坐私家车、皮卡、卡车或公共汽车行驶超过200公里到达缓冲地带医院。震后五天，每日住院率恢复到震前水平，震后九天所有医院服务均恢复。大多数患者（83%）在缓冲地带医院接受了确定性治疗；7%被转诊至三级护理中心；9%自行出院。与被困在混凝土砖石建筑倒塌和狭窄小巷中的半城镇居民相比，居住在传统建筑中的被困村民受伤较少，救援率较高。然而，在危机时刻，有见识的城镇居民比穷人更能更好地利用现有的医疗资源。挤压伤的发生率较低。来自不同背景的志愿医生联合起来应对医疗危机。通过当地团体开展工作的国际救援机构更有效。当地救援团体需要更好地协调。各种善意机构的灾难观光给救援人员带来了负担。许多手术可能导致了随后的发病率上升。
受伤情况与大多数其他白天发生的地震报告的情况相似。缓冲地带的治疗效果优于现场和受损医院的治疗效果。
