ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2024
A remote motion analysis of mass casualty incident simulations.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegular training for mass casualty incidents at physical simulation events is vital for emergency services. The preparation and execution of these simulations consume huge amounts of time, personnel, and money. It is therefore important to gather as much information as possible from each simulation while minimizing any influence on the participants, so as to keep the simulation as realistic as possible. In this paper, an analysis of GPS-based remote motion measurements of participants in a mass casualty incident simulation is presented. A combination of different evaluation methods is used to analyze the data. This could reduce the potential bias of the measurement methods.
methodsMovement patterns of participants of mass casualty incident simulations, measured by GPS loggers, were analyzed. The timeline of the simulation was segmented into event sections, based on movement patterns of participants entering or leaving defined areas. Movement patterns of participants working closely together were correlated to analyze their cooperation. Written logs created by observers on the ground were used to reconstruct the events of the simulation, to provide a comparative reference to validate the motion analysis.
resultsRecorded motion patterns of the participants were found to be qualitatively related to observer logs and triage allocations, allowing a partial reconstruction of the behavior of the participants during the simulation. By analyzing the times the simulation patients left the site of events some possible misjudgments in the triage decisions were indicated.
conclusionsAnalysis of movement patterns from GPS loggers and comparison with observations made on the ground showed that accurate information about the events during the simulation can be automatically delivered. Although the records of observers on the ground are vital to assess details, delegation of the automated analysis of individual and group motion could perhaps allow observers to concentrate on more specific tasks. The partially automated motion analysis methods presented should simplify the process of analyzing mass casualty incident simulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.