Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-14T02:41:39.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

From Simulation to Survival: Managing an Emergency Department Under the Threat of a Ballistic Missile Attack

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2026

Evan Avraham Alpert*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hadassah Medical Center-Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, Israel Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Ethan Brandler
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hadassah Medical Center-Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, Israel Renaissance School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York
Aliza Goldman
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hadassah Medical Center-Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, Israel
Maximilian Nerlander
Affiliation:
Center for Disaster Medicine and Traumatology, University of Linköping, Sweden School of Public Health, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Jacob Assaf
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hadassah Medical Center-Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, Israel Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Ahmad Nama
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hadassah Medical Center-Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, Israel Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
*
Corresponding author: Evan Avraham Alpert; Email: avraham.alpert@mail.huji.ac.il
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On April 14 and October 1, 2024, and then for 10 days from June 13, 2025, Israel was under ballistic missile attacks, causing casualties and destruction. This report describes the response of an emergency department (ED) in Jerusalem to maintain quality care and safety during these attacks. It was vital to minimize the number of ED patients in unprotected zones. Patients in the unprotected area of the ED were relocated to protected zones, and a mechanism was implemented to close blast doors that had been blocked by a technical issue. Lessons learned included: adapting protected areas in the ED for continued patient care, properly closing blast doors, and maintaining flexible emergency protocols to address evolving hazards.

Information

Type
Report from the Field
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc

Introduction

Ballistic missiles can deliver hundreds of kilograms of explosives, as well as chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads. Aside from direct injuries, civilians are affected by the psychological effects of attacks. Furthermore, during and after these attacks, routine healthcare services are disrupted due to safety concerns for patients and staff. Despite these disruptions, emergency departments (EDs) must continue to function, providing health care services both to routine patients and those affected by missile attacks. The objective of this field report is to describe the actions taken in the ED of the Hadassah University Medical Center at Ein Kerem (HUMC-EK) in Jerusalem, Israel, to ensure continuity of operations during the threat of ballistic missile attacks.

Narrative

HUMC-EK is 1 of 29 hospitals in Israel, a tertiary care medical center with over 800 beds, and is 1 of 7 supra-regional trauma centers. Most of the patient rooms in the ED, including the trauma bays, acute care areas, and pediatrics, are “bombproof” to the highest technical standards. This includes outer concrete walls that are at least 25 cm thick, a blast door that opens out, and specially designed blast windows.1 The ambulatory ED, designated for low acuity patients, is not a protected area.

Per Ministry of Health (MOH) regulations, all hospitals in Israel must have comprehensive disaster preparedness plans, including written protocols and regular training exercises.Reference Nitzan, Mendlovic and Ash2 In 2022, the hospital conducted a 2-day drill simulating a mass casualty incident (MCI) resulting from a missile penetrating the hospital. The ED and trauma service also practiced at least one annual large-scale MCI drill. This threat was realized on April 14 and again on October 1, 2024, when multiple ballistic missiles were fired at Israel, increasing the need for preparedness. Israel was again subject to a missile barrage, which began on June 13, 2025, and continued for 10 days.

Data on missile alerts in Jerusalem was taken from the website of the Home Front Command (HFC).3 The data on the number of patients in the ED was taken from the hospital’s Business Intelligence (BI) database. IRB approval was obtained (Protocol 0012-25-HMO).

In the city of Jerusalem, there were a total of 11 separate events (including April 14, 2024, October 1, 2024, and June 13-22, 2025) warning of incoming ballistic missiles. On October 1, 2024, 3 separate alerts occurred within a span of less than 20 minutes, whereas all other sirens were single events.

At the time of an oncoming missile, an alert from the HFC was broadcast via news outlets and a dedicated phone app, indicating a 10-minute warning of an attack. In response, the hospital-wide public address system repeated the alert along with instructions to move to protected areas. Ninety seconds before a predicted missile impact, a siren was sounded as a final warning.

The primary objectives of hospital response for a ballistic missile attack were: (1) to move patients, staff, and visitors to previously identified protected areas, (2) to continue to treat routine patients while ensuring the safety of staff, patients, and visitors, and (3) to free beds for potential MCI victims. To free beds, the ED and other departments activated “reverse triage”—either by direct discharges from the ED or from wards.Reference Pollaris, De Bondt and Hoogmartens4 This process of early discharge was mandated by the MOH and drills were conducted to ensure appropriate functioning of the process. The process during the exercises and in real time was supervised by a charge nurse and an internist and was based primarily on provider judgment.

The designated protected areas in the ED are acute care, trauma, and pediatrics (Fig. 1a). All patients in the unprotected ambulatory ED during this time had to be able to walk as opposed to being in a wheelchair, which was common during routine times. Once hospital-wide protocols were implemented, Zoom meetings were held for all ED staff to ensure everyone knew the locations of the protected zones, with maps depicting these areas distributed electronically to staff. Anytime a warning of a potential incoming missile was received, ED staff, security personnel, and designated clerical staff wearing yellow vests guided patients from unprotected to protected areas. During each shift, the nurses instructed admitted patients and their families on where to relocate during a siren. They were also responsible for evacuating these patients when the siren went off.

Figure 1. Emergency Department map by zones.

To mitigate the risk of blast injuries, the number of exits within the protected space was reduced, thereby restricting access. Other ED doors flanking the protective spaces had to be sealed (Fig. 1b). Typically, these doors are kept open with metal ramps to facilitate rolling beds through the doorways. However, these ramps prevented the closure of the doors. Without the ramps, the lip that remained around the doorway frame after they were removed created a tripping hazard. As a temporary measure, in-house engineers removed the metal ramp and replaced it with a lightweight wooden panel to facilitate easy removal and hermetic closure of the doors. During the alerts, the security and ED staff took responsibility for removing the wood panels and sealing the doors (Fig. 1b).

More than 200 people, including hospital workers and visitors near the ED, entered the protected areas during each alert. When the ED became aware of a missile threat for the first time in October 2024, ambulatory patients were briefly moved to the protected zones (Fig. 1a) and treatment was paused until after the all-clear was sounded, enabling a safe return to their designated areas.

In April of 2024, during a sustained missile attack lasting upward of 3 hours, it became clear that pausing operations was not reasonable, and to provide continuing care, an appropriately protected working space for ambulatory patients had to be created. Continuous missile threats were not included in previous drills. During this attack, a patient arrived with a suspected aortic dissection and was placed on a monitored bed in the protected acute care area. A physician escorted him between the sirens to the unprotected computed tomography (CT) suite located several meters outside the protected area. The patient was returned to the protected acute care area after the CT was completed, and there was a break in the alerts. When his results showed he needed immediate surgery, he was escorted between the sirens to the protected operating room.

During the April and October 2024 ballistic missile launches, the ambulatory area patients were relocated to the protected area between the pediatric ED and trauma room (Fig. 1a).

The hospital again faced waves of ballistic missile attacks during 10 days in June 2025. At this time, the protected area was reformatted to include the ambulatory ED. An approximately 230 m2 corridor, located in the back hallway, ensured a safe space for continued patient treatment (Fig. 1a). Chairs and beds were set up. The adjacent staff lounge was converted into a triage area with the ability to perform phlebotomy and electrocardiograms (Fig. 1a). Orthopedic and suturing supplies were prearranged on carts for easy transport. Two medication rooms are within the protected area.

During the warning sirens, on average, 46 patients were in the ambulatory and 40 in the acute care areas of the ED. This did not include staff, visitors, and others who ran to the ED’s protected areas. During the recorded times of the ballistic missile attacks, the number of ED patients showed a 30-70% reduction from a comparison period during all but two of the sirens. The hospital suffered no direct hits.

Discussion

MCIs have been described extensively in the literature.Reference Yıkılmaz, Temizayak and Çit5 The EDs in Israel have dealt with MCIs over the last 25 years, often the result of independent events such as suicide bombers or vehicle rammings that did not directly threaten hospitals.Reference Aharonson-Daniel, Klein and Peleg6, Reference Tsur, Nadler and Sorkin7 Previously, Israel had suffered rocket (limited destructive power) attacks, but the number of victims was low.Reference Sonkin, Jaffe and Alpert8 However, the worldwide literature on injuries from ballistic missiles is limited. A study based on a ballistic missile attack on a US base in Iraq on January 8, 2020, detailed that there were significant concussion injuries from the blast wave.Reference Hainsworth, Johnson and Godfred-Cato9, Reference Killian, Clark and Hu10

Limitations

This report describes one ED out of many in Israel that had to restructure due to the fear of ballistic missile attacks. Other hospitals may also offer valuable lessons.Reference Bar-On, Shapira and Barkai11 Additionally, although the BI program at HMC details the number of patients in the ED, it does not show the number of visitors and staff who were present during the attack. Other patients, visitors, and workers moved to these areas during the sirens from various locations throughout the hospital to the ED, since it was a designated protected area.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, hospitals now must prepare for a possible ballistic missile attack. This report documents the practices and procedures implemented in one ED in Jerusalem to better protect patients, staff, and visitors from the potential dangers of the blast wave and its impact.

Key lessons learned include: (1) the importance of identifying and adapting areas within bomb shelters to provide ongoing care, (2) the significance of properly closing blast doors to prevent injuries and fatalities, and (3) the necessity for healthcare facilities to adapt to changing hazards.

Author contribution

Evan Avraham Alpert, MD—study conception and design, drafting, and critical review of the manuscript. Ethan Brandler—interpretation of data, critical review of the manuscript, Aliza Goldman- data collection, drafting, and critical review of the manuscript, Maximilian P. Nerlander—analysis, drafting, and critical review of the manuscript, Jacob Assaf—study design, critical review of the manuscript, Ahmad Nama—study design, drafting, and critical review of the manuscript.

Competing interests

Evan Avraham has no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethan Brandler has no conflict of interest to disclose.

Aliza Goldman has no conflict of interest to disclose.

Maximilian Nerlander has no conflict of interest to disclose.

Jacob Assaf has no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ahmad Nama has no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

IRB approval was obtained (Protocol 0012-25-HMO), and patient consent was waived- there is no patient information or identifiers.

Use of AI technology

None.

References

Nitzan, D, Mendlovic, J, Ash, N. The Israeli Trauma system during wartime - policy and management. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2024;13(1):32. Published 2024 Jul 22. doi:10.1186/s13584-024-00623-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Emergency Portal. https://www.oref.org.il/eng. Accessed December 22, 2025.Google Scholar
Pollaris, G, De Bondt, F, Hoogmartens, O, et al. Facilitating the reverse triage selection process: A European Delphi. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2025;19:e65. Published 2025 Mar 20. doi:10.1017/dmp.2025.62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yıkılmaz, ÖF, Temizayak, F, Çit, R, et al. Quick response and management of patients during a mass casualty incident: Experiences after 2023 Türkiye Earthquake. J Hand Surg Am. 2025;50(5):606614. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2025.01.014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aharonson-Daniel, L, Klein, Y, Peleg, K; ITG. Suicide bombers form a new injury profile. Ann Surg. 2006;244(6):10181023. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000225355.06362.0f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsur, AM, Nadler, R, Sorkin, A, et al. Patterns in vehicle-ramming attacks. Isr Med Assoc J. 2022;24(9):579583.PMID: 36168176.Google ScholarPubMed
Sonkin, R, Jaffe, E, Alpert, EA, et al. Impact of repeated military conflicts on civilian patterns of emergency medical services utilization: A retrospective cohort study. Am J Disaster Med. 2022;17(2):143152. doi:10.5055/ajdm.2022.0428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hainsworth, JB, Johnson, A, Godfred-Cato, S, et al. The 8 January 2020 theatre ballistic missile attack on US soldiers stationed at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq: case series using a concussion subtypes framework to approach a real-world, chaotic blast-related TBI mass casualty event. BMJ Neurol Open. 2023;5(1):e000343. Published 2023 May 30. doi:10.1136/bmjno-2022-000343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killian, B, Clark, R, Hu, C. Lessons learned from a traumatic brain injury mass casualty incident. J Spec Oper Med. 2021;21(3):123125. doi:10.55460/MAZS-N4FP.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bar-On, E, Shapira, S, Barkai, G, et al. Real-time innovative solutions for ensuring continuity and safety of medical care in a hospital under wartime physical threat. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2025;19:e332. Published 2025 Nov 28. doi:10.1017/dmp.2025.10263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Emergency Department map by zones.