Evaluation of Hospital Preparedness and Response to Trauma Through a Full-Scale Disaster Drill: A Multimethod Study
This multimethod study evaluating a hospital's full-scale trauma disaster drill found that while frontline clinical triage was effective, systemic inefficiencies in communication, command coordination, and resource logistics significantly hindered the overall mass casualty response.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
When a sudden disaster strikes, such as a bus crash or a natural calamity, hospitals must transform instantly from places of routine care into high-speed rescue hubs. This transformation relies on a system where doctors and nurses can sort the injured by how badly they need help, a process called triage, while a central command team directs resources like beds, equipment, and staff to where they are needed most. For these systems to work when real lives are on the line, hospitals practice with drills that simulate mass casualties. These exercises are not just about checking boxes; they are designed to reveal the hidden cracks in a hospital's armor, showing where communication breaks down, where supplies run out, or where the chain of command gets confused. Understanding these weaknesses is vital because in a true emergency, there is no time to figure out who is in charge or where the extra stretchers are kept.
Researchers at Patan Academy of Health Sciences in Nepal recently put their hospital through such a test, simulating a collision between two buses that resulted in roughly one hundred injured people. The goal was not to see if the staff could treat patients, but to watch how the entire hospital moved as a single machine. They tracked the flow of time from the moment the first simulated victim arrived until they were settled into treatment or moved to a ward. They also listened to the people running the show, from the doctors making split-second decisions to the administrators managing the phones and the security guards keeping order. By combining a stopwatch analysis of patient movement with in-depth conversations about what went wrong, the team mapped out exactly where the hospital's response held strong and where it stumbled.
The results offered a clear picture of a hospital that is ready to treat the injured but struggles to organize the chaos around them. When the first simulated patients arrived, the medical staff reacted with impressive speed. The sorting process, known as triage, began immediately, with no delay at all. The doctors and nurses were able to assess the severity of injuries and direct patients to the right areas faster than the official rules required. This showed that the frontline clinical team was well-trained and ready to act. However, once the patients moved past that first point of contact, the pace slowed down significantly. The journey from the emergency room to an operating theater or an intensive care unit became bogged down by logistical hurdles. For instance, while the initial sorting took seconds, sending a patient to the intensive care unit took over thirty minutes, and getting lab test results took more than fifty minutes, far exceeding the target time of thirty minutes.
The study also looked at how the hospital's command center, the group responsible for making the big decisions, performed under pressure. The system designed to manage the crisis, known as the Hospital Incident Command System, took nearly fifteen minutes to fully activate after the first report of the accident, whereas the goal was to have it running within five minutes. Similarly, assigning a specific officer to manage the triage area took almost seventeen minutes, double the expected time. While the emergency siren was eventually sounded within the thirty-minute window, and the first patient was seen immediately, the delay in setting up the command structure meant that the overall coordination of the response was sluggish. The researchers found that the command team struggled to see what was happening in real time because they lacked video monitoring in their command room and their phone lines to security were unreliable.
Beyond the timing, the researchers identified specific bottlenecks that caused confusion and delays. One major issue was a lack of clarity regarding who was responsible for paying for the care of the injured, which led to a delay in performing X-rays because staff were unsure if the hospital's policy for free care applied to the situation. Another problem was the sheer number of people in the wrong places; unassigned staff and spontaneous volunteers crowded the triage zones, sometimes outnumbering the patients and blocking the path for those who needed urgent help. The drill also revealed that the physical layout of the hospital posed challenges, such as a bus being unable to reach the intended drop-off point due to a low clearance height, and a shortage of trolleys to move patients.
The study concluded that while the medical professionals were highly skilled and ready to save lives, the systems supporting them were not yet robust enough for a true mass casualty event. The gaps were not in the ability to treat a wound or set a broken bone, but in the invisible infrastructure of communication, logistics, and command. The researchers noted that the hospital needed better ways to talk to each other, clearer rules for who does what, and a plan to manage the flow of people and supplies so that the command center could see the whole picture. By identifying these specific weaknesses through a realistic simulation, the hospital now has a roadmap to fix the communication lines, clarify the roles of every staff member, and ensure that when a real disaster strikes, the entire organization moves as one efficient unit rather than a collection of well-meaning individuals working in the dark.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.