Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2026
Improving preparedness for mass casualty incidents in hospitals: insights from a large-scale simulation exercise with geotracking and validated questionnaires.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond crisis: rethinking the evaluation of psychosocial interventions after mass casualty incidents.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- Operational enablers and barriers in hospital incident command: insights from a single-center table-top exercise at a tertiary care university hospital-a qualitative phenomenological study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMass casualty incidents (MCIs) rapidly exceed routine hospital capacity. Full-scale exercises are essential for preparedness, but systematic, multidimensional evaluations remain scarce. This study aimed to evaluate overall team performance in triage accuracy, workflow, and individual workload throughout a MCI exercise.
methodsIn a prospective observational study at Heidelberg University Hospital (Germany), healthcare professionals managed 91 simulated casualties using a two-stage triage process. Patients and staff carried location tags enabling continuous spatiotemporal tracking. Objective outcomes included triage accuracy, triage duration, patient flow, and staff–patient contact frequency. Subjective workload and teamwork were assessed using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM), respectively.
resultsOverall triage accuracy was 75.4%. Undertriage occurred in 11.6% of category I and 10.1% of category II cases; overtriage was infrequent (2.9%). Mean triage times differed significantly by category: ‘red’ 59 ± 25 s, ‘yellow’ 173 ± 74 s, ‘green’ 205 ± 100 s (p < 0.0001). Geotracking demonstrated consistent patient flow without detectable bottlenecks and a mean of 7.1 ± 5.7 patient contacts per staff member. NASA-TLX scores indicated high temporal demand but low frustration with an overall workload of 66.7 ± 16; specialists and staff with greater professional experience reported significantly lower perceived workload (p < 0.05). TEAM ratings were homogeneously good across all participants (79.8%).
conclusionsThis study provides reproducible benchmark data on simulated hospital MCI response. The integration of geotracking with subjective measures, enables a comprehensive evaluation of hospital disaster preparedness. Moreover, the ability to compare different exercises and collect reliable longitudinal data may further enhance hospital disaster response.
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.