Shen Wei-feng, Jiang Li-bing, Jiang Guan-yu, Zhang Mao, Ma Yue-feng, He Xiao-jun
Department of Emergency Medicine, the Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310009, China.
J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2014 Dec;15(12):1072-80. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B1400225.
In this paper, we review the previous classic research paradigms of a mass casualty incident (MCI) systematically and reflect the medical response to the Wenchuan earthquake and Hangzhou bus fire, in order to outline and develop an improved research paradigm for MCI management.
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, China Wanfang, and China Biology Medicine (CBM) databases for relevant studies. The following key words and medical subject headings were used: 'mass casualty incident', 'MCI', 'research method', 'Wenchuan', 'earthquake', 'research paradigm', 'science of surge', 'surge', 'surge capacity', and 'vulnerability'. Searches were performed without year or language restriction. After searching the four literature databases using the above listed key words and medical subject headings, related articles containing research paradigms of MCI, 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, July 5 bus fire, and science of surge and vulnerability were independently included by two authors.
The current progresses on MCI management include new golden hour, damage control philosophy, chain of survival, and three links theory. In addition, there are three evaluation methods (medical severity index (MSI), potential injury creating event (PICE) classification, and disaster severity scale (DSS)), which can dynamically assess the MCI situations and decisions for MCI responses and can be made based on the results of such evaluations. However, the three methods only offer a retrospective evaluation of MCI and thus fail to develop a real-time assessment of MCI responses. Therefore, they cannot be used as practical guidance for decision-making during MCI. Although the theory of surge science has made great improvements, we found that a very important factor has been ignored-vulnerability, based on reflecting on the MCI response to the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and July 5 bus fire in Hangzhou.
This new paradigm breaks through the limitation of traditional research paradigms and will contribute to the development of a methodology for disaster research.
本文系统回顾既往大规模伤亡事件(MCI)的经典研究范式,并反思对汶川地震和杭州公交车纵火事件的医学应对,以勾勒并发展一种改进的MCI管理研究范式。
我们检索了PubMed、EMBASE、中国万方和中国生物医学数据库(CBM)中的相关研究。使用了以下关键词和医学主题词:“大规模伤亡事件”、“MCI”、“研究方法”、“汶川”、“地震”、“研究范式”、“激增科学”、“激增”、“激增能力”和“脆弱性”。检索无年份或语言限制。使用上述关键词和医学主题词在四个文献数据库中检索后,两位作者独立纳入了包含MCI研究范式、2008年汶川地震、7月5日公交车纵火事件以及激增科学和脆弱性的相关文章。
MCI管理的当前进展包括新黄金时间、损害控制理念、生存链和三环节理论。此外,有三种评估方法(医学严重程度指数(MSI)、潜在致伤事件(PICE)分类和灾害严重程度量表(DSS)),可动态评估MCI情况并据此做出MCI应对决策。然而,这三种方法仅对MCI进行回顾性评估,因此无法对MCI应对进行实时评估。因此,它们不能用作MCI期间决策的实际指导。尽管激增科学理论有了很大改进,但基于对2008年汶川地震和杭州7月5日公交车纵火事件的MCI应对反思,我们发现一个非常重要的因素被忽视了——脆弱性。
这种新范式突破了传统研究范式的局限性,将有助于灾害研究方法的发展。