A considerable amount of the required information in risk and emergency management is geographical, but this information does not always reach the right actors at the right time, so how can geographical information be organised in such a way that it supports risk and emergency management more effectively? The answer requires a conceptualisation of risk and emergency management practices resulting in the network-centric concept, which implies that those involved in risk and emergency management are connected and that they have the capability to share and access information. The concept was made operational through the development of an information system and the exchange of geographical information within the system was facilitated by the use of peer-to-peer networking in combination with a client server network. On the application level, the information was presented in both map and text forms to support the exchange of information between actors. This way of organising geographical information and technology leads to improved information and communication, better situational awareness and faster decisionmaking.
MULTIFILE
OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of training for the Emergency Management of Severe Burns (EMSB) for medical and nursing staff working in emergency care as measured by their performance in a simulated burn incident online program.METHODS: An Internet-based questionnaire, which included a simulated burn incident, was developed. All of the medical and nursing staff in hospital emergency departments and ambulance services in the Netherlands were invited to complete this questionnaire. The effect of EMSB training on the individual's knowledge of and performance in the emergency management of a burn victim was evaluated because some of the respondents had participated in EMSB training, whereas others had not.RESULTS: Of the 280 responses received, 198 questionnaires were included in the analysis. The analyzed questionnaires were submitted by nurses (43%), ambulance workers (33%), and physicians (23%). Only 14% of the people in the study had participated in EMSB training, whereas 78% had received other or additional life support training and 22% of respondents had no additional life support training. Medical and nursing staff who had participated in EMSB training performed better in the following subjects: mentioning hypothermia as a focus of attention (70% versus 53%, p=0.085), correct use of hand size (70% versus 36%, p=0.001) and use of the correct hand percentage in the estimation of total body surface area (TBSA, 82% versus 57%, p=0.015), suspicion of no airway obstruction in an outdoor trauma (93% versus 63%, p = 0.002) and referral of functional area burns to a burn center (22% versus 8%, p = 0.04). However, both groups overestimated the TBSA (34% of the total group overestimated ≥ 20%) and did not know the correct formula for fluid resuscitation (87% of the total group).CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that medical staff members who have participated in EMSB training have a better knowledge of emergency management and are more effective in the management of a simulated burn case. However, both individuals who had participated in EMSB as well as those who had not participated in EMSB needed additional training in EMSB.
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
