Australian major incident nomenclature: It may be a ‘disaster’ but in an ‘emergency’ it is just a mess

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: A standardized major incident nomenclature has practical applications for medical communication and audit of the medical response to incidents. Methods: A telephone and fax survey of major incident nomenclature in State and Territory health service emergency management plans and ‘disaster’ legislation was carried out on 13 August 1999. Results: Within Australia there were a total of 13 different terms to describe incidents that could produce casualties: there were four definitions of the word ‘disaster’, eight definitions of the word ‘emergency’ and one definition of the word ‘incident’. Conclusion: Australia lacks a uniform system of classifying and recording mass casualty incidents. This prevents both the independent clinical audit of the medical response to an incident and the cross-border comparison of the effectiveness of trauma systems to deal with multiple casualties. Australia’s geography highlights the need to develop a nomenclature that allows medical practitioners, in isolated environments, to accurately describe an incident and the medical support that is required. The Potential Injury-Creating Event (PICE) nomenclature is a simple system to describe the functional impact of an event upon a community and the level of medical support required. It can be used to provide the basis for the uniform reporting of the medical management of major incidents within Australia.