Background: On April 16, 2007 a mass shooting occurred on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). Due to both distance and weather, air transport of the injured directly to a level 1 trauma center was not possible. The injured received all of their care or were initially stabilized at 3 primary hospitals that either had a level 3 trauma center designation or no trauma center designation.

Methods: This article is a retrospective analysis of the regional health system (prehospital, hospital, regional hospital emergency operations center, and public health local and state) response. Data records from all of the regional responding emergency medical services, hospitals, and coordinating services were reviewed and analyzed. Records for all 26 patients were reviewed and analyzed using triage designations, injury severity scores (ISS), and critical mortality.

Results: Twenty-five of the 26 patients were triaged in the field. Excluding 1 patient (asthma), the average ISS for victims presenting was 8.2. Twelve patients had an ISS of ≥9, and 5 had an ISS score of ≥15. Ten of the 26 patients (38%) required urgent intervention and surgery in the first 24 hours. The overall regional health system mortality of victims received was 3.8% (1 death [excluding 1 dead on arrival {DOA}]/ 26 victims from scene). The regional health system critical mortality rate (excluding 1 victim who was DOA) was 20% (1/5).

Discussion: The outcomes of the Virginia Tech mass casualty incident, as evidenced by the low overall regional health system mortality of victims received at 3.8% (1/26) and low critical mortality rate (excluding 1 victim who was DOA) of 20%, coupled with a need to treat a significant amount of moderately injured victims 46% (12/26 with ISS ≥9) gives credence to the successful response. The successful response occurred as a consequence of regional collaborative planning, training, and exercising, which resulted not only in increased expertise and improved communications but also in essential relationships and a sense of trust forged among all of the responders. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S9–S13)

Purpose: To examine the relationship between overtriage and critical mortality after a mass casualty incident (MCI) using a simulation model of trauma system response.

Methods: We created a discrete event simulation model of trauma system management of MCIs involving individual patient triage and treatment. Model variables include triage performance, treatment capability, treatment time, and time-dependent mortality of critically injured patients. We model triage as a variable selection process applied to a hypothetical population of critically and noncritically injured patients. Treatment capability is represented by staffed emergency department trauma bays with associated staffed operating rooms that are recycled after each use. We estimated critical and noncritical patient treatment times and time-dependent mortality rates from the trauma literature.

Results: In this simulation model, overtriage, the proportion of noncritical patients among all of those labeled as critical, has a positive, negative, or variable association with critical mortality depending on its etiology (ie, related to changes in triage sensitivity or to changes in the prevalence and total number of critical patients). In all of the modeled scenarios, the ratio of critical patients to treatment capability has a greater impact on critical mortality than overtriage level or time-dependent mortality assumption.

Conclusions: Increasing overtriage may have positive, negative, or mixed effects on critical mortality in this trauma system simulation model. These results, which contrast with prior analyses describing a positive linear relationship between overtriage and mortality, highlight the need for alternative metrics to describe trauma system response after MCIs. We explore using the relative number of critical patients to available and staffed treatment units, or the critical surge to capability ratio, which exhibits a consistent and nonlinear association with critical mortality in this model. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S14–S24)

Background: Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), shot and killed 33 students and faculty, including himself, on the morning of April 16, 2007.

Methods: A retrospective review of the medical examiner system response to this multiple fatality event was undertaken to identify which procedures were and were not effective. Case records, spreadsheets, telephone call logs, notes, and after-action interviews of staff were reviewed and analyzed. Recommendations were developed to improve the management of the multiple components of a high-profile multiple fatality event.

Results: One autopsy took place on Monday, April 16, 12 on Tuesday, April 17, and 20 on Wednesday, April 18. Pathologists archived the biopsies of major organs in formalin. Slides were made of entrance wounds that exhibited residues. Blood for alcohols was collected from victims. Blood for alcohols, acid, base, and neutral drugs was collected from Cho for analysis.

Conclusions: Standard forensic pathology procedures worked and timely postmortem examinations were completed. The victim identification component of the family assistance center must be established and staffed at the time of the initial response. Public information officers need training in morgue and medicolegal death management and in ways to effectively communicate with different audiences about multiple fatality management procedures. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl1):S25–S30)

Incidents of school and workplace violence are rare but devastating events that can result in significant psychological consequences in communities. The majority of people in the United States will experience some type of traumatic event in their lifetime, but most of them will have no disruption or only transient disruption in functioning. They are either resistant to the development of symptoms or resilient, able to bounce back quickly. By enhancing resistance and promoting resilience, even fewer individuals may develop mental disorders. This article takes a closer look at the concepts of resistance, resilience, and recovery and the need for research on interventions that promote them, in the hope of applying the concepts and interventions to schools and the workplace. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S33–S37)

The recent shootings at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) suggest that an increased reliance upon the medical community to support public health violence prevention efforts may be warranted. As physicians are called upon to support these efforts, they must effectively balance their obligations to promote public safety with their traditional obligations to promote the best interests of their individual patients. To meet these concurrent ethical obligations, physicians' participation in public health violence prevention should seek to improve public safety without compromising the care of patients or exposing individuals to undue harm. Physicians should, therefore, report to the appropriate authorities those patients who are at risk of committing violent acts toward the public, but should only disclose the minimal amount of information that is necessary to protect the public. Moreover, physicians should also recommend the separation of violent individuals from the community at large when necessary to improve public safety while advocating for the provision of appropriate treatment measures to improve the patients' well-being. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S38–S42)

Assessing legal responsibility in the aftermath of the April 2007 tragedy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) is inevitable. Beyond assigning blame, law- and policymakers should examine ways to protect the public from future incidences of gun violence on campuses and other settings. Although no combination of legal responses may fully deter individuals who are intent on causing significant harm, select legal reforms have the potential to prevent future acts of gun violence. These reforms include considering more restrictive gun laws nationally, reporting individuals with known mental impairments that may endanger themselves or others to federal or state databases, and refining laws that limit institutions from acting in advance to address prospectively dangerous people. Each of these reforms has the potential to reduce acts of gun violence to improve the public's health, but also implicates individual rights and interests. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S43–S46)

In 2004 the US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, sponsored a National Summit on Campus Public Safety. The summit brought together various stakeholders including campus police and security officials, local police chiefs, college and university faculty and administrators, federal officials, students and parents, and community leaders to address the issues and complexities of campus safety. Delegates to the summit identified key issues in campus safety and security, which included establishing a national center on campus safety, balancing traditional open environments with the need to secure vulnerable sites, improving coordination with state and local police, reducing internal fragmentation, elevating professionalism, and increasing eligibility of campus police and security agencies to compete for federal law enforcement funds. Focus on “active shooters” on campus, resulting from the Virginia Tech incident, should not diminish attention placed on the broader, more prevalent safety and security issues facing the nation's educational campuses. Recommendations resulting from the summit called for establishing a national agenda on campus safety, formation of a national center on campus public safety, and increased opportunity for campus police and security agencies to compete for federal and state funds. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S47–S50)

Eighteen national organizations, representing medicine, dentistry, nursing, hospital systems, public health, and emergency medical services, have worked together to create a framework for a national and regional disaster response health system that is scalable, multidisciplinary, and seamless, and based on an all-hazards approach. In July 2005 and June 2006 the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) convened the AMA/APHA Linkages Leadership Summit, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the Terrorism Injuries: Information Dissemination and Exchange (TIIDE) program. As cofacilitators, James J. James, MD, DrPH, MHA, director of the AMA Center for Public Health Preparedness and Disaster Response, and Georges Benjamin, MD, FACP, FACEP(E), APHA executive director, met with leaders from 16 national medical, dental, hospital, nursing, hospital systems, public health, and emergency medical services organizations in Chicago (2005) and New Orleans (2006) to deliberate the deficiencies in the medical and public health disaster response system and the lack of necessary linkages between key components of this system: the health care, emergency medical services, and public health sectors. The goal was to reach consensus on a set of overarching recommendations to improve and sustain health system preparedness and to combine each organization's advocacy expertise and experience to promote a shared policy agenda. The full summit report contains 53 consensus-based recommendations, which will serve as the framework for a coordinated national agenda for strengthening health system preparedness for terrorism and other disasters. The 9 most overarching critical recommendations from the report are highlighted here. Although the summit report presents important perspectives on the subject of preparedness for public health emergencies, we must understand that preparedness is a process and that these recommendations must be reviewed and refined continually over time. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S51–S54)