ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
A full response chain surge capacity test of a small rural hospital, prehospital resources and collaborating organisations.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreased surge capacity is key in mass casualty incidents. Rural hospitals face other challenges in terms of transport capacity and available resources. The aim was to examine if a simulation system previously used to test surge capacity at large hospitals, could be used to test surge capacity at a small rural hospital.
methodA qualitative study was conducted to assess surge capacity at a small rural hospital using a previously validated simulation system. The simulation system was adopted to the Norwegian trauma system and local context. New simulated patient cards were developed, inspired by traffic victims. A tunnel accident scenario involving a bus, a heavy goods vehicle and a motorcyclist was used. Test staff ensured that real consumption of time and resources were followed. 98 persons representing 16 organisations, participated. A post-test survey was collected.
resultsAccess to the scene and transport resources were bottlenecks in the initial phase. The emergency department and lack of surgeons and anaesthetic doctors in the trauma team became the first and most prominent in-hospital surge capacity limiting factors. Operating theatre reached surge capacity, but never exceeded. The intensive care unit avoided depletion of beds/staff/ventilators due to transfer of patients to the trauma centre. Surge capacity was enhanced by obtaining staff, blood and equipment from the trauma centre. Water lock systems and replenishment routines for chest tube trays was inadequate. Blood supply was insufficient in the initial phase and a lack of overview of blood products was identified. Some communication gaps and deficiencies in victim identification were detected. The hospital participants evaluated the method as useful in assessing hospital surge capacity. Half of the participants requested increased time to learn the system pre-test. The inclusion of several organisations in the mass casualty incident exercise was appreciated and ranked high as a simulation training.
conclusionThe simulation system provided detailed data to determine surge capacity and capacity-limiting factors in the mass casualty incidents response at a rural hospital and performed as a training tool for staff. Methods to improve pre-test simulation system knowledge should be examined. Broad inclusion of cooperating organisations was found beneficial.
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.