Standards of Medical Planning and Response for Emergency Medical Teams During Mass Gatherings: A Systematic Review

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction: Mass gathering events (MGE), organized or unplanned, can attract sufficient attendees to strain the planning and response resources of the host community, state, or nation, thereby delaying the response to emergencies. MGEs also have the potential to cause a mass casualty incident. But MGE can also lead to improvements in the organization of local emergency medical services or public health that form the legacy of that MGE. Emergency medical teams (EMTs) could be deployed to ensure health security as a surge in MGE. But these EMTs should be built on guiding principles and core standards. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no standards on medical planning and response during any type of MGE (e.g., sports, religious, or festivals). Method: A systematic review was performed in accordance with current guidelines, using six databases, namely Medline (via the PubMed interface), Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and CINAHL, as well as literature sourced by Google Scholar and The Journal of Prehospital and Disaster Medicine. Studies published on minimum standards or medical planning and response during MGE from 2002-2022, written in English, were selected and assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. Results: From a total of 20,159 articles, 138 were screened, and 32 were assessed for eligibility. Two were only abstracts, and the others did not contain any description of minimal standards available for medical planning or response in different types of MGE. Conclusion: No studies were found that describe any form of standards for medical planning and the response of emergency medical teams in different types of mass gathering events (e.g., sports, religious, festivals). There is a need for minimum standards for emergency medical teams deploying as a surge in mass gathering events.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.