Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T18:43:06.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Best Practice Injury Compensation Processes Following Intentional Vehicular Assaults and Other Large Scale Transport Incidents: A Delphi Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2021

Tracey Varker*
Affiliation:
Phoenix Australia - Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Kari McGregor
Affiliation:
Phoenix Australia - Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
David J. Pedder
Affiliation:
Phoenix Australia - Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Ros Lethbridge
Affiliation:
Phoenix Australia - Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Genevieve Grant
Affiliation:
Australian Centre for Justice Innovation, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
Holly Knight
Affiliation:
Phoenix Australia - Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Kimberley A. Jones
Affiliation:
Phoenix Australia - Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Jurriaan Jacobs
Affiliation:
ARQ Centre of Expertise for the Impact of Disasters and Crises, Diemen, Netherlands
Meaghan O’Donnell
Affiliation:
Phoenix Australia - Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Tracey Varker, Email: tvarker@unimelb.edu.au.

Abstract

Objective:

Intentional vehicular assaults on civilians have become more frequent worldwide, with some resulting in mass casualties, injuries, and traumatized witnesses. Health care costs associated with these vehicular assaults usually fall to compensation agencies. There is, however, little guidance around how compensation agencies should respond to mental and physical injury claims arising from large-scale transport incidents.

Methods:

A Delphi review methodology was used to establish expert consensus recommendations on the major components of “no fault” injury claim processes for mental and physical injury.

Results:

Thirty-three international experts participated in a 3-round online survey to rate their agreement on key statements generated from the literature. Consensus was achieved for 45 of 60 (75%) statements, which were synthesized into 36 recommendations falling within the domains of (1) facilitating claims, (2) eligibility rules, (3) payments and benefits for clients, (4) claims management procedures, (5) making and explaining decisions, (6) support and information resources for clients, (7) managing scheme staff and organizational response, (8) clients with special circumstances, and (9) scheme values and integrity.

Conclusions:

The recommendations present an opportunity for agencies to review their existing claims management systems and procedures. They also provide the basis for the development of best practice guidelines, which may be adapted for application to compensation schemes in different contexts worldwide.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Jasiński, A. Protecting public spaces against vehicular terrorist attacks. Czasopismo Techniczne. 2018;2:47-56.Google Scholar
Almogy, G, Kedar, A, Bala, M. When a vehicle becomes a weapon: intentional vehicular assaults in Israel. Scand J Trauma Resusc. 2016;24(1):149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Ezra, M, Hamama-Raz, Y, Mahat-Shamir, M, et al. Shattering core beliefs: psychological reactions to mass shooting in Orlando. J Psychiatr Res. 2017;85:56-58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Ezra, M, Pitcho-Prelorentzos, S, Mahat-Shamir, M. A blast from the past: civilians immediate psychological reactions and associative memory of prior events following exploding bus in Israel. Psychiatry Res. 2016;246:545-547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Donnell, ML. Psychosocial recovery after serious injury. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2014;5(1):26516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luntz, H, Hambly, D, Burns, K, et al. Torts: cases and commentary. 8th ed. Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis; 2017.Google Scholar
Letschert, R, Staiger, I, Pemberton, A. Assisting victims of terrorism: towards a European standard of justice. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2009.Google Scholar
Ramirez, J. The Victims Compensation Fund: a model for future mass casualty situations. Transp L J. 2001;29:283.Google Scholar
Alkema, D. Money isn’t everything. A qualitative study on the characteristics and explanations surrounding international compensation schemes for victims of terrorism [Masters Thesis]; 2017.Google Scholar
Office for Victims of Crime, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. International Terrorism Victim Expense Reimbursement Program. Washington, DC: Author; 2014.Google Scholar
Anema, JR, Schellart, AJM, Cassidy, JD, et al. Can cross country differences in return-to-work after chronic occupational back pain be explained? An exploratory analysis on disability policies in a six country cohort study. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(4):419-426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collie, A, Lane, TJ, Hassani-Mahmooei, B, et al. Does time off work after injury vary by jurisdiction? A comparative study of eight Australian workers’ compensation systems. BMJ Open. 2016;5(5):e010910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisson, JI, Tavakoly, B, Witteveen, AB, et al. TENTS guidelines: development of post-disaster psychosocial care guidelines through a Delphi process. Br J Psychiatry. 2010;196(1):69-74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorm, AF. Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015;49(10):887-897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skulmoski, GJ, Hartman, FT, Krahn, J. The Delphi method for graduate research. J Inf Technol Res. 2007;6:1-21.Google Scholar
Sumsion, T. The Delphi technique: an adaptive research tool. Br J Occup Ther. 1998;61(4):153-156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Admi, H, Eilon, Y, Hyams, G, et al. Management of mass casualty events: the Israeli experience. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2011;43(2):211-219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloan, HM. Responding to a multiple-casualty incident: room for improvement. J Emerg Nurs. 2011;37(5):484-486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McIntyre, J, Goff, BSN. Federal disaster mental health response and compliance with best practices. Community Ment Health J. 2012;48(6):723-728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
North, CS, Weaver, JD, Dingman, RL, et al. The American Red Cross disaster mental health services: development of a cooperative, single function, multidisciplinary service model. J Behav Health Serv. 2000;27(3):314-320.Google Scholar
Tucker, P, Pfefferbaum, B, Vincent, R, et al. Oklahoma City: disaster challenges mental health and medical administrators. J Behav Health Serv Res. 1998;25(1):93-99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Varker et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Varker et al. supplementary material(File)
File 34.5 KB