This study evaluates the perceptions of preparedness and willingness to work during disasters and public health emergencies among 213 healthcare workers at hospitals in the southern region of Saudi Arabia by using a quantitative survey (Fight or Flight). The results showed that participants’ willingness to work unconditionally during disasters and emergencies varied based on the type of condition: natural disasters (61.97%), seasonal influenza pandemic (52.58%), smallpox pandemic (47.89%), SARS/COVID-19 pandemic (43.56%), special flu pandemic (36.15%), mass shooting (37.56%), chemical incident and bombing threats (31.92%), biological events (28.17%), Ebola outbreaks (27.7%), and nuclear incident (24.88%). A lack of confidence and the absence of safety assurance for healthcare workers and their family members were the most important reasons cited. The co-variation between age and education versus risk and danger by Spearman’s rho confirmed a small negative correlation between education and danger at a 95% level of significance, meaning that educated healthcare workers have less fear to work under dangerous events. Although the causes of unsuccessful management of disasters and emergencies may vary, individuals’ characteristics, such as lack of confidence and emotional distractions because of uncertainty about the safety issues, may also play a significant role. Besides educational initiatives, other measures, which guarantee the safety of healthcare providers and their family members, should be established and implemented.

Objective As one of Europe’s most densely populated countries with multiple nuclear installations and a prominent petrochemical industry, Belgium is at some reasonable risk for terrorist attacks or accidental chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear (CBRN) incidents. We hypothesize that local hospitals are not sufficiently prepared to deal with these incidents. Materials and methods All 138 Belgian hospitals with an emergency department (ED) were sent a survey on their preparedness. Data on hospital disaster planning, risk perception, availability of decontamination units, personal protective equipment, antidotes, radiation detection, infectiologists, isolation measures, and staff training were collected. Results The response rate was 72%. Although 71% of hospitals reported being at risk for CBRN incidents, only 53% planned for the same in their disaster plans. Only 11% of hospitals had decontamination facilities in front of or at the ED entrance and only 6% had appropriate personal protective equipment for triage and decontaminating teams. Atropine was available at all centers, but more specific antidotes such as hydroxycobolamine, thiosulphate, or pralidoxime were less available (47, 47, and 19%, respectively). Six percent of hospitals had radiodetection equipment with an alarm function and 14% had a nuclear specialist available 24/7. Infectiologists were continuously available in 26% of the total EDs surveyed. Individual isolation facilities were present in 36% of the EDs, and isolation facilities capable of housing larger groups were present in 9%. University hospitals were significantly better prepared than community hospitals. Conclusion There are serious gaps in hospital preparedness for CBRN incidents in Belgium. Lack of financial resources is a major obstacle in achieving sufficient preparedness.

Medical students have been deployed in victim care of several disasters throughout history. They are corner stones in first-line care in recent pandemic planning. Furthermore, every physician and senior medical student is expected to assist in case of disaster situations, but are they educated to do so? Being one of Europe’s densest populated countries with multiple nuclear installations, a large petrochemical industry and also at risk for terrorist attacks, The Netherlands bear some risks for incidents. We evaluated the knowledge on Disaster Medicine in the Dutch medical curriculum. Our hypothesis is that Dutch senior medical students are not prepared at all. Senior Dutch medical students were invited through their faculty to complete an online survey on Disaster Medicine, training and knowledge. This reported knowledge was tested by a mixed set of 10 theoretical and practical questions. With a mean age of 25.5 years and 60 % females, 999 participants completed the survey. Of the participants, 51 % considered that Disaster Medicine should absolutely be taught in the regular medical curriculum and only 2 % felt it as useless; 13 % stated to have some knowledge on disaster medicine. Self-estimated capability to deal with various disaster situations varied from 1.47/10 in nuclear incidents to 3.92/10 in influenza pandemics. Self-estimated knowledge on these incidents is in the same line (1.71/10 for nuclear incidents and 4.27/10 in pandemics). Despite this limited knowledge and confidence, there is a high willingness to respond (ranging from 4.31/10 in Ebola outbreak over 5.21/10 in nuclear incidents to 7.54/10 in pandemics). The case/theoretical mix gave a mean score of 3.71/10 and raised some food for thought. Although a positive attitude, 48 % will place contaminated walking wounded in a waiting room and 53 % would use iodine tablets as first step in nuclear decontamination. Of the participants, 52 % even believes that these tablets protect against external radiation, 41 % thinks that these tablets limit radiation effects more than shielding and 57 % believes that decontamination of chemical victims consists of a specific antidote spray in military cabins. Despite a high willingness to respond, our students are not educated for disaster situations.

Introduction: Being one of Europe’s most densely populated countries, and having multiple nuclear installations, a heavy petrochemical industry, and terrorist targets, the Netherlands is at-risk for chemical, biological, or radionuclear (CBRN) incidents. Recent world and continental events show that this threat is real and that authorities may be underprepared.Hypothesis: The hypothesis of this study is that Dutch hospitals are underprepared to deal with these incidents.Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was performed. All 93 Dutch hospitals with an emergency department (ED) were sent a link to an online survey on different aspects of CBRN preparedness. Besides specific hospital information, information was obtained on the hospital’s disaster planning; risk perception; and availability of decontamination units, personal protective equipment (PPE), antidotes, radiation detection, infectiologists, isolation measures, and staff training.Results: Response rate was 67%. Sixty-two percent of participating hospitals were estimated to be at-risk for CBRN incidents. Only 40% had decontamination facilities and 32% had appropriate PPE available for triage and decontamination teams. Atropine was available in high doses in all hospitals, but specific antidotes that could be used for treating victims of CBRN incidents, such as hydroxycobolamine, thiosulphate, Prussian blue, Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), or pralidoxime, were less frequently available (74%, 65%, 18%, 14%, and 42%, respectively). Six percent of hospitals had radioactive detection equipment with an alarm function and 22.5% had a nuclear specialist available 24/7 in case of disasters. Infectiologists were continuously available in 60% of the hospitals. Collective isolation facilities were present in 15% of the hospitals.Conclusion: There is a serious lack of hospital preparedness for CBRN incidents in The Netherlands. Mortelmans LJM , Gaakeer MI , Dieltiens G , Anseeuw K , Sabbe MB . Are Dutch hospitals prepared for chemical, biological, or radionuclear incidents? A survey study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):483–491.

Due to the similarity in skills and assets, Civilian-Military collaboration has emerged as one of the most reliable partnerships during the disaster and public health emergency management to address all necessary elements of surge capacity, i.e., staff, stuff, structure (space), and systems. This study aimed to evaluate this collaboration before and during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic. The outcomes of the systematic review revealed several published reports on successful civilian-military collaboration and proposed a need for further improvement. One hundred sixty-six individuals from 19 countries responded to nine questions, included in an online survey with the possibility to leave comments if necessary. The questionnaire referred to elements such as command and control, safety, communication, assessment, triage, treatment, and transport, as the crucial components of emergency management. The comprehensive examination of the survey results together with registered comments revealed a possible improvement in collaboration particularly on the strategic levels, i.e., meetings at the command-and-control level, safety, communication, and networking issues. While logistic collaboration seemed to be unchanged, the practical parts of the collaboration, i.e., clinical and non-clinical operational partnership (Triage and Treatment), mutual education, training, and operational understanding of each organization remained unchanged. In conclusion, although the current pandemic may have facilitated a more intense collaboration between civilian and military healthcare organizations, it lacks practical partnership and operative engagement, representing two crucial elements necessary for harmony and compatibility of both systems. Such collaboration may require a political will and perhaps a mutual civilian-military authority.

Introduction Historically, medical students have been deployed to care for disaster victims but may not have been properly educated to do so. A previous evaluation of senior civilian medical students in Belgium revealed that they are woefully unprepared. Based on the nature of their military training, we hypothesised that military medical students were better educated and prepared than their civilian counterparts for disasters. We evaluated the impact of military training on disaster education in medical science students. Methods Students completed an online survey on disaster medicine, training, and knowledge, tested using a mixed set of 10 theoretical and practical questions. The results were compared with those of a similar evaluation of senior civilian medical students. Results The response rate was 77.5%, mean age 23 years and 59% were males. Overall, 95% of military medical students received some chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training and 22% took part in other disaster management training; 44% perceived it is absolutely necessary that disaster management should be incorporated into the regular curriculum. Self-estimated knowledge ranged from 3.75 on biological incidents to 4.55 on influenza pandemics, based on a 10-point scale. Intention to respond in case of an incident ranged from 7 in biological incidents to 7.25 in chemical incidents. The mean test score was 5.52; scores improved with educational level attained. A comparison of survey data from civilian senior medical master students revealed that, except for influenza pandemic, military students scored higher on knowledge and capability, even though only 27% of them were senior master students. Data on willingness to work are comparable between the two groups. Results of the question/case set were significantly better for the military students. Conclusions The military background and training of these students makes them better prepared for disaster situations than their civilian counterparts.