We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study sought to assess undergraduate students’ knowledge and attitudes surrounding perceived self-efficacy and threats in various common emergencies in communities of higher education.
Methods
Self-reported perceptions of knowledge and skills, as well as attitudes and beliefs regarding education and training, obligation to respond, safety, psychological readiness, efficacy, personal preparedness, and willingness to respond were investigated through 3 representative scenarios via a web-based survey.
Results
Among 970 respondents, approximately 60% reported their university had adequately prepared them for various emergencies while 84% reported the university should provide such training. Respondents with high self-efficacy were significantly more likely than those with low self-efficacy to be willing to respond in whatever capacity needed across all scenarios.
Conclusions
There is a gap between perceived student preparedness for emergencies and training received. Students with high self-efficacy were the most likely to be willing to respond, which may be useful for future training initiatives.
We sought to determine who is involved in the care of a trauma patient.
Methods:
We recorded hospital personnel involved in 24 adult Priority 1 trauma patient admissions for 12 h or until patient demise. Hospital personnel were delineated by professional background and role.
Results:
We cataloged 19 males and 5 females with a median age of 50-y-old (interquartile range [IQR], 35.5-67.5). The average number of hospital personnel involved was 79.71 (standard deviation, 17.62; standard error 3.6). A median of 51.2% (IQR, 43.4%-59.8%) of personnel were first involved within hour 1. More personnel were involved in direct versus indirect care (median 54.5 [IQR, 47.5-67.0] vs 25.0 [IQR, 22.0-30.5]; P < 0.0001). Median number of health-care professionals and auxiliary staff were 74.5 (IQR, 63.5-90.5) and 6.0 (IQR, 5.0-7.0), respectively. More personnel were first involved in hospital locations external to the emergency department (median, 53.0 [IQR, 41.5-63.0] vs 27.5 [IQR, 24.0-30.0]; P < 0.0001). No differences existed in total personnel by Injury Severity Score (P = 0.1266), day (P = 0.7270), or time of admission (P = 0.2098).
Conclusions:
A large number of hospital personnel with varying job responsibilities respond to severe trauma. These data may guide hospital staffing and disaster preparedness policies.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.