Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31045819›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2019

The crowd-out effect of a mass casualty incident: Experience from a dust explosion with multiple burn injuries.

Chih-Jen Yang, Shih-Hung Tsai, Wu-Chien Chien, Chi-Hsiang Chung, Niann-Tzyy Dai, Yuan-Sheng Tzeng, Sy-Jou Chen, Ding-Chung Wu, Cheng-Jueng Chen

Abstract readHistorical ArticleObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Actionable, Revised (v.3), and Amplified American Burn Association Triage Tables for Mass Casualties: A Civilian Defense Guideline.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2020
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Beyond lessons learned: Establishing longitudinal data collection to improve burn disaster response.Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Chih-Jen YangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center.
Shih-Hung TsaiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center.
Wu-Chien ChienDepartment of Medical Research, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center.
Chi-Hsiang ChungDepartment of Medical Research, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center.
Niann-Tzyy DaiDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center.
Yuan-Sheng TzengDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center.
Sy-Jou ChenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center.
Ding-Chung WuMedical Records Office, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center.
Cheng-Jueng ChenDeputy Superintendent, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A mass casualty incident (MCI) can have an enormous impact on an already crowded emergency department (ED), affecting the quality of health care provided to non-MCI ED patients. On June 26, 2015, a burn MCI (BMCI) occurred due to a cornstarch explosion at a party at a water park. The competing needs of the BMCI patients might have crowded out the needs of the non-BMCI patients. Although crowd-out effects have been previously documented in a variety of health care situations, they have not been extensively evaluated during MCIs. We aimed to determine whether the outcomes of the non-MCI patients were compromised during this incident.We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing several health care parameters and outcomes between non-BMCI patients and historical controls during the designated period using institutional electronic records and the National Health Insurance Research Database.On the night of the incident, 53 patients were sent to our ED; most of them arrived within 3 hours after the BMCI. There was a significant increase in the wait time for ICU beds among non-BMCI patients compared to the wait times during the corresponding week of the previous year (8.09 ± 4.21 hours vs 3.77 ± 2.15 hours, P = .008). At the hospital level, there was a significantly increased length of hospital stay (LOS) in the ICU after the MCI compared with the LOS in the ICU in the same week of the preceding year (median days: 15 vs 8, P ≤ .001). At the regional level, there were no significant differences between the 2 periods in the LOS in acute care, LOS in the ICU or mortality rates at the involved medical centers.Crowd-out effects from the MCI occurred in the ED and at the institutional level. Although there was an increased wait time for admission to the ICU and a longer LOS in the ICU, the LOS in acute care beds, treatment of time-sensitive diseases, and mortality rates were not compromised by the current MCI protocol at either the institutional or regional levels.

Indexed as

CrowdingBlast InjuriesBurnsCritical CareDustEmergency Service, HospitalExplosionsFemaleHistory, 21st CenturyHospitalizationHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMass Casualty IncidentsMultiple TraumaDust

Identifiers

PMID31045819
PMCPMC6504323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.