A trial in selected men suggested that antibiotic therapy could be an alternative to appendicectomy in appendicitis. This study aimed to evaluate antibiotic therapy in unselected men and women with acute appendicitis. Consecutive patients were allocated to study (antibiotics) or control (surgery) groups according to date of birth. Study patients received intravenous antibiotics for 24 h and continued at home with oral antibiotics for 10 days. Control patients had a standard appendicectomy. Follow-up at 1 and 12 months was carried out according to intention and per protocol. Study and control patients were comparable at inclusion; 106 (52·5 per cent) of 202 patients allocated to antibiotics completed the treatment and 154 (92·2 per cent) of 167 patients allocated to appendicectomy had surgery. Treatment efficacy was 90·8 per cent for antibiotic therapy and 89·2 per cent for surgery. Recurrent appendicitis occurred in 15 patients (13·9 per cent) after a median of 1 year. A third of recurrences appeared within 10 days and two-thirds between 3 and 16 months after hospital discharge. Minor complications were similar between the groups. Major complications were threefold higher in patients who had an appendicectomy (P < 0·050). Antibiotic treatment appears to be a safe first-line therapy in unselected patients with acute appendicitis. Registration number: NCT00469430 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

COVID-19 has proven to be a formidable challenge for many countries in the European Union to manage effectively. The European Union has implemented numerous strategies to face emerging issues. Member States have adopted measures such as the closure of borders and significant limitations on the mobility of people to mitigate the spread of the virus. An unprecedented crisis coordination effort between Member States has facilitated the ability to purchase equipment, personal protective equipment, and other medical supplies. Attention has also been focused on providing substantive money for research to find a vaccine and promote effective treatment therapies. Financial support has been made available to protect worker salaries and businesses to help facilitate a return to a functional economy. Lessons learned to date from COVID-19 in the European Union are many; the current crisis highlights the need to think about future pandemics from a population-based management approach and apply outside the box critical thinking. Due to the complexity, intensity, and frequency of complex disasters, global leaders in healthcare, government, and business will need to pivot from siloed approaches to decision-making to embrace multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary levels of cooperation. This cooperation requires courage and leadership to recognize that changes are necessary to avoid making the same mistakes we have planned countless times on avoiding. This study focuses on the European Union’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic, starting with how the European Union first learned and processed the global information arising out of China, followed by the incremental population-based medicine/management decisions made that currently are defining the European Union’s capacity and capability. The capacity to organize, deliver, and monitor care to a specific clinical population under a population-based management target includes strict social distancing strategies, contact testing and tracing, testing for the virus antigen and its antibodies, isolation, and treatment modalities such as new mitigating medications, and finally, a vaccine.

Objective:To examine the possibility of estimating the number of civilian casualties in modern armed conflicts.Methods:A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science search engines. The outcome was analyzed using a qualitative inductive thematic analysis. The scientific evidence of selected article was assessed, using the Health Evidence Quality Assessment Tool.Findings:The review of 66 included articles in this study indicates that with an increasing number of public health emergencies and the lack of vital elements of life such as water and food, emerging armed conflicts seem to be inevitable. In contrast to military-led cross-border traditional wars, modern armed conflicts affect internally on local communities and take civilian lives. Consequently, the measures and tools used in traditional military-led cross-border wars to adequately tally wounded and dead for many decades under the mandates of the International Humanitarian Law, is insufficient for modern warfare. While casualty counting during modern conflicts is deficient due to organizational, political or strategic reasons, the international organizations responsible for collecting such data (the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent and International Institute of Humanitarian Law) face difficulties to access the conflict scene, resulting in under-reported, unreliable or no-reported data.Conclusion:There are challenges in estimating and counting the number of civilian casualties in modern warfare. Although the global need for such data is evident, the risks and barriers to obtaining such data should be recognized, and the need for new international involvement in future armed conflicts should be emphasized.

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.

Introduction: It is expected that in unforeseen situations, nurses will provide appropriate medical interventions, using their expertise and skills to reduce the risks associated with the consequences of disasters. Consequently, it is crucial that they are properly prepared to respond to such difficult circumstances. This study aimed to identify the factors influencing the basic competences of nurses in disasters. Materials and methods: The survey was directed to 468 nurses from all medical centres in Lublin. IBM SPSS Statistics version 23 was used for statistical analyses, frequency analysis, basic descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis. The classical statistical significance level was adopted as α = 0.05. Results: Based on the logistic regression analysis, it was found that work experience, workplace preparedness, as well as training and experience in disaster response are important predictors of preparedness. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the nurses' core competencies for these incidents can be improved through education and training programmes which increase their preparedness for disasters. Nurses are among the most important groups of healthcare professionals facing a disaster and should be involved in all phases of disaster management, such as risk assessment and pre-disaster planning, response during crisis situations and risks’ mitigation throughout the reconstruction period.

Disaster response demands a large workforce covering diverse professional sectors. Throughout this article, we illustrate the results of a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies to identify existing competency sets for disaster management and humanitarian assistance that would serve as guidance for the development of a common disaster curriculum. A systematic review of English-language articles was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, ERIC, and Cochrane Library. Studies were included if reporting competency domains, abilities, knowledge, skills, or attitudes for professionals involved disaster relief or humanitarian assistance. Exclusion criteria included abstracts, citations, case studies, and studies not dealing with disasters or humanitarian assistance. Thirty-eight papers were analyzed. Target audience was defined in all articles. Five references (13%) reported cross-sectorial competencies. Most of the articles (81.6%) were specific to health care. Eighteen (47%) papers included competencies for at least 2 different disciplines and 18 (47%) for different professional groups. Nursing was the most widely represented cadre. Eighteen papers (47%) defined competency domains and 36 (94%) reported list of competencies. Nineteen articles (50%) adopted consensus-building to define competencies, and 12 (31%) included competencies adapted to different professional responsibility levels. This systematic review revealed that the largest number of papers were mainly focused on the health care sector and presented a lack of agreement on the terminology used for competency-based definition. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:430–439)