Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37919753›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2023

The Field's mass shooting: emergency medical services response.

Peter Martin Hansen, Søren Mikkelsen, Henrik Alstrøm, Anders Damm-Hejmdal, Marius Rehn, Peter Anthony Berlac

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cross-border collaboration in a major incident: emergency medical services response to a train crash.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. The role of tactical police medics in the prehospital environment: results from an interview study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. European perspectives on pre-hospital interagency collaboration during terrorist incidents: a focus group study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Concrete silo collapse: emergency medical services response to a mass casualty incident.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter Martin HansenThe Mobile Emergency Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Odense University Hospital Svendborg, Svendborg, Denmark. peter.martin.hansen@rsyd.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8065-5765
Søren MikkelsenThe Prehospital Research Unit, Region of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5187-7027
Henrik AlstrømDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
Anders Damm-HejmdalCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, Ballerup, Denmark.
Marius RehnDepartment of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9519-241X
Peter Anthony BerlacCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, Ballerup, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DKGentofte Hospital · DKHvidovre Hospital · DKOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMajor incidents (MI) happen infrequently in Scandinavia and mass shootings are even less frequently occurring. Case reports and research are called for, as literature is scarce. On 3rd July 2022, a mass shooting took place at the shopping mall Field's in Copenhagen, Denmark. Three people were killed and seven injured by a gunman, firing a rifle inside the mall. A further 21 people suffered minor injuries during the evacuation of the mall. In this case report, we describe the emergency medical services (EMS) incident response and evaluate the EMS´ adherence to the MI management guidelines to identify possible areas of improvement. CASE PRESENTATION: Forty-eight EMS units including five Tactical Emergency Medical Service teams were dispatched to the incident. Four critically injured patients were taken to two trauma hospitals. The deceased patients were declared dead at the scene and remained there for the sake of the investigation. A total of 24 patients with less severe and minor injuries were treated at four different hospitals in connection with the attack. The ambulance resources were inherently limited in the initial phase of the MI, mandating improvisation in medical incident command. Though challenged, Command and Control, Safety, Communication, Assessment, Triage, Treatment, Transport (CSCATTT) principles were followed.

conclusionsThe EMS response generally adhered to national guidelines for MI. The activation of EMS and the hospital preparedness program was relevant. Important findings were communication shortcomings; inherent lack of readily available ambulance resources in the initial critical phase; uncertainty regarding the number of perpetrators; uncertainty regarding number of casualties and social media rumors that unnecessarily hampered and prolonged the response. The incident command had to use non-standard measures to mitigate potential challenges.

Indexed as

Disaster PlanningEmergency Medical ServicesMass Casualty IncidentsAmbulancesHospitalsHumansTriageDisasterMajor incidentManagement and leadershipMass casualtyMass shooting

Identifiers

PMID37919753
PMCPMC10621148
OpenAlexW4388226237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.