Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T03:07:25.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient-Data Collection System Used During Medical Operations After the 1994 San Fernando Valley-Northridge Earthquake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Ralph B. (Monty) Leonard ,
Lew W. Stringer  and
Roy Alson
Ralph B. (Monty) Leonard*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Lew W. Stringer
Affiliation:
Special Operations Response Team, Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Roy Alson
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd., Winston-Salem, NC 27157USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

In large disasters, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, rapid, adequate and documented medical care and distribution of patients are essential.

Methods:

After a major (magnitude 6.7 Richter scale) earthquake occurred in Southern California, nine disaster medical assistance teams and two Veterans Administration (VA) buses with VA personnel responded to staff four medical stations, 19 disaster-assistance centers, and two mobile vans. All were under the supervision of the medical support unit (MSU) and its supervising officer. This article describes the patient-data collection system used. All facilities used the same patient encounter forms, log sheets, and medical treatment forms. Copies of these records accompanied the patients during every transfer. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data classifications were used routinely. The MSU collected these forms twice each day so that all facilities had access to updated patient flow information.

Results:

Through the use of these methods, more than 11,000 victims were treated, transferred, and their cases tracked during a 12-day period.

Conclusions:

Use of this system by all federal responders to a major disaster area led to organized care for a large number of victims. Factors enhancing this care were the simplicity of the forms, the use of the forms by all federal responders, a central data collection point, and accessibility of the data at a known site available to all agencies every 12 hours.

Keywords

data collectiondisaster responsedisaster medical assistance teamsdisaster medicinedisaster victimsearthquakeSan Fernando Valley–Northridge earthquake

Information

Type
Special Reports
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 10 , Issue 3: CJ Shanaberger Memorial Issue , September 1995 , pp. 178 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1995

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Noji, EK: Natural disasters: Disaster management. Crit Care Clin 1991;7:271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Mahoney, LE, Whiteside, DF, Belue, HE, et al. : Disaster medical assistance teams. Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:354–358.Google Scholar
3. Mahoney, LE: Manpower task force national disaster medical system. Disaster medical assistance team organization guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1986; report NDMS-86/1.Google Scholar
4. Alson, R, Alexander, D, Leonard, RB, et al. : Analysis of medical treatment at a field hospital following Hurricane Andrew, 1992. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:1721–1728.Google Scholar
5. Auf der Heide, E. Disaster response. Principles of preparation and coordination. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1989.Google Scholar
6. Burkle, FM Jr., Sanner, PH, Wolcott, BW: Disaster Medicine. New Hyde Park, N.Y.: Medical Examination Publishing, 1984.Google Scholar
7. Reis, ND, Dolev, E: Manual of Disaster Medicine, Civilian and Military. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
8. Manni, C, Magalini, SI: Emergency and disaster medicine. Proceedings of the Third World Congress, Rome, 24–27 May 1983. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1985.Google Scholar
9. United States Federal Emergency Management Agency. Special statistical summary; deaths, injuries, and property loss by type of disaster 1970–1980. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1982.Google Scholar
10. Beinin, L: Medical Consequences of Natural Disasters. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. The Public Health Consequences of Disasters 1989. Centers for Disease Control Monograph. Atlanta, Ga., U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, September, 1989.Google Scholar
12. Noji, EK: Analysis of medical needs during disasters caused by tropical cyclones: Anticipated injury patterns. J Trop Med Hyg 1993;96:370–376.Google Scholar
13. Lillibridge, SR, Noji, EK: The importance of medical records in disaster epidemiology research. J AHIMA 1992;63:137–138.Google Scholar
14. Lee, LE, Fonseca, V, Brett, KM, et al. : Active morbidity surveillance after Hurricane Andrew—Florida, 1992. JAMA 1993;270:591–594.Google Scholar
15. Henderson, AK, Lillibridge, SR, Salinas, C, et al. : Disaster medical assistance teams: Providing health care to a community struck by Hurricane Iniki. Ann Emerg Med 1994;23:726–730.Google Scholar