ArticleBMJ open2026
Reducing the therapeutic vacuum: a qualitative study learning from experiences of care delivery during terror attacks in the UK over the past 20 years.
Article in BMJ open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe complex and dynamic care context of terror attacks must be better understood to reduce deaths. This study was designed to understand the tension between saving lives and maximising safety for emergency responders attending active terror incidents. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsQualitative study exploring the experience of survivors and emergency responders (armed and unarmed police, paramedics, doctors and fire officers) present in the hot (unsafe) zone of five major terror attacks in the UK since 2000. We used reflexive thematic data analysis to build qualitative case studies, comparing similarities and tensions between perspectives of different participant groups.
resultsIn our analysis of over 2000 min of interview data from 26 participants, we found a common view that the priority during a terror-related mass casualty event was to save lives. However, responder groups maintained distinct mental models that shaped their operational priorities regarding treatment for those injured within the hot zone. All responders expressed willingness to take self-assessed risks to save lives, but better interagency communication was noted to be required to achieve this safely. All responders felt it was vital to have experienced health professionals present to triage and facilitate urgent treatment and extraction decisions. Armed police commanders had dual responsibilities to achieve rapid care delivery while preventing further terrorist-inflicted injuries. Operationally, this was perceived as leading to a lack of shared mental models between responders regarding what is 'unsafe' due to zoning, rather than communication of risk, potentially delaying vital care delivery. There were mixed survivor perspectives regarding the risks that responders should be exposed to, but broad agreement that there was a notable absence of health professionals present in the hot zone during the immediate aftermath of attacks.
conclusionThere is strong professional and public support for improving care delivery, including potential hot zone working, to minimise the therapeutic vacuum in active terrorist attacks. Better risk communication and better shared mental models are necessary to balance responder risk with care delivery to maximise lives saved as safely as possible.
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.