• Michael Bemelman and Luke Leenen.
• Department of Surgery and Trauma, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. mbemelma@azu.nl.
• Eur J Trauma Emerg S. 2008 Oct 1;34(5):451.

ObjectiveIn the Netherlands, major incidents are sparse, and so there is a general feeling of a relatively low risk. Upon evaluating multiple casualty events (MCEs) in the Netherlands over the last 60 years, it is worth noting 39 major events. Our objective was to report the experiences from a mass casualty incident in an urban area, performing a critical evaluation of the response and outcome related to the scenario in order to learn from our past and to train for the future.Materials And MethodsIn a retrospective patient record analysis we collected all of the data concerning an MCE we encountered in August 2006.ResultsThere were 21 casualties at the scene. Of our 19 patients, 12 were seen in the crash room. The average age of the patients was 30 years (range 22-53). In all, 87 X-rays, 1 ultrasound and 15 CT scans were performed. Four patients were admitted: ten patients received definitive wound treatment in the ED. Psychological support was given to all patients. One patient died three days later.ConclusionTriage supported by one person and two trauma teams worked well. The amount of over- and undertriage was in line with the literature. Numbering the patients worked well but also caused enormous problems with the supporting facilities. Centralizing the trauma care yielded certain advantages; however, we must respect our surge capacity of 20 patients. When the number of patients surpasses 20, an alternative plan must be followed. This event has been an eye-opener for our organization; it has given us new tools to prepare for a potential new disaster.

2 keywords...

hide…