These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Mass casualty incidents : preparedness of German soccer arenas].
    Author: Luiz T, Preisegger T, Madler C.
    Journal: Anaesthesist; 2013 Apr; 62(4):278-84. PubMed ID: 23576092.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Each weekend soccer arenas attract hundreds of thousands of spectators with the German Bundesliga being one of the most attractive sport series worldwide. In 2006 when the FIFA soccer World Cup™ took place in Germany, the precautions in the participating arenas against mass casualty incidents (MCI) reached a level formerly unknown in Germany. However, it is unknown how soccer arenas are prepared to deal with such incidents in everyday life. METHODS: In 2011 all German major soccer league clubs were questioned about medical precautions in case of MCIs occurring in the stadium. The questionnaire included the following items: stadium capacity, the number of paramedic personnel, emergency physicians and ambulance vehicles, the command and communication structures, the availability of MCI plans, recent MCI drills and the frequency of MCI. RESULTS: Out of 39, 15 (38.4 %) participated, 50 % from the first league and 20.8 % from the second league. The mean stadium capacity was 41,800 spectators (minimum 10,600, maximum 80,700). Depending on the number of spectators and the individual risk score of the match the following resources were available within the stadiums (average, minimum, maximum,): emergency medical technicians 61-67 (15, 120), emergency physicians 2.3-2.5 (1, 5) and transport capacity 5.3-5.8 patients (1, 15). In 14 arenas (93.3 %) the medical personnel were trained in mass casualty care and had prepared MCI operation schedules. All stadiums had mission control centers equipped with a variety of wired and wireless communication tools, although only eight (52.3 %) arenas used a joint command structure and five (33.3 %) arenas reported MCIs (defined as a scenario involving more than 10 patients) within the past 10 years. In 40 % of the participants the last MCI-related exercise was conducted more than 36 months ago. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the participating arenas were adequately staffed to manage the first phase of MCIs but in contrast command structures and transport capacities often focused on individual emergencies. Although most of the participants stated that they planned the resources provision according to well established algorithms, the resources actually available at the arenas varied considerably. The frequency of MCIs in soccer arenas was surprisingly high in contrast to the frequency of MCI-related drills.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]