ArticlePloS one2026
Mass casualty incident preparedness and response: A desk review of the Code Orange Plan and Assessment of Healthcare Workers' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in a Lebanese Tertiary Government Hospital.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective preparedness and response to mass casualty incidents (MCI) are essential for hospital safety, operational efficiency, and the delivery of timely, high-quality patient care during emergencies. This study assessed a tertiary government hospital in Lebanon's Code Orange plan by reviewing documentation for alignment with international guidelines and evaluating staff knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding MCI preparedness.
methodsDocuments reviewed at Rafik Hariri University Hospital (RHUH) included the current Code Orange plan, relevant policies, and international guidelines. A comprehensive evaluation framework was used, focusing on preparedness, incident command systems, communication, and management. A comparison with established standards was conducted to identify gaps. Complementing this, a cross-sectional study was conducted using a convenient sample of medical and non-medical healthcare workers to evaluate their KAP regarding MCI preparedness.
resultsThe desk review of the RHUH Code Orange plan identified both strengths and significant gaps in MCI preparedness. While the plan defines staff roles and resources for emergency response, it lacks detailed procedures for activation strategies, surge capacity, continuity of essential services, and triage processes. Additionally, post-event recovery protocols are insufficient or absent, and the importance of regular drills is not adequately emphasized. The KAP study revealed significant differences between medical and non-medical staff in terms of MCI knowledge, involvement, and training engagement, with medical staff reporting higher levels of familiarity and desire for participation.
conclusionThe findings underscore the need to bridge knowledge and engagement gaps between medical and non-medical staff to enhance MCI response. Key actions include interdisciplinary training to build coordination, clear communication protocols to streamline information flow, and routine drills with defined roles to strengthen preparedness. Additionally, implementing performance monitoring during drills and real MCIs, along with conducting regular evaluations, will allow for continuous refinement of response strategies.
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.