Search

Background: Burn care is centralized in highly specialized burn centers in Europe. These centers are of limited capacity and may be overwhelmed by a sudden surge in case of a burn mass casualty incident. Prior incidents in Europe and abroad have sustained high standards of care through well-orchestrated responses to share the burden of care in several burn centers. A burn mass casualty incident in Romania in 2015 sparked an initiative to strengthen the existing EU mechanisms. This paper aims to provide insight into developing a response plan for burn mass casualties within the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.Methods: The European Burns Association drafted medical guidelines for burn mass casualty incidents based on a literature review and an in-depth analysis of the Romanian incident. An online questionnaire surveyed European burn centers and EU States for burn mass casualty preparedness.Results: The Romanian burn mass casualty in 2015 highlighted the lack of a burn-specific mechanism, leading to the late onset of international transfers. In Europe, 71% of respondents had existing mass casualty response plans, though only 35% reported having a burn-specific plan. A burns response plan for burn mass casualties was developed and adopted as a Commission staff working document in preparation for further implementation. The plan builds on the existing Union Civil Protection Mechanism framework and the standards of the WHO Emergency Medical Teams initiative to provide 1) burn assessment teams for specialized in-hospital triage of patients, 2) specialized burn care across European burn centers, and 3) medevac capacities from participating states.Conclusion: The European burn mass casualty response plan could enable the delivery of high-level burn care in the face of an overwhelming incident in an affected European country. Further steps for integration and implementation of the plan within the Union Civil Protection Mechanism framework are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Musculoskeletal Diseases (MSDs) are among the most prevalent health problems encountered in the workforce in Europe. Multiple risk factors contribute to their onset. In the present study, different individual risk factors for chronic tendinous pathology affecting the shoulder were analysed in a sample of workers from the automotive manufacturing sector., Methods: An observational retrospective study was conducted with 73 cases of officially recognised and compensated occupational diseases and 94 aleatory cases of healthy workers from the same car assembly company. The experimental group comprised individuals with tendinous chronic pathology of the rotator cuff. Multiple variables that identified the risks present in the job were assessed along with participants clinical evaluation. Furthermore, two standardised guidelines for risk factors assessment were also used: the Spanish National Institute of Social Security (INSS) and the American Occupational Information Network (O*Net). Both descriptive statistical analysis and Odds ratios calculations considering the occupational disease as a dependent variable were performed., Results: The use of hand tools, exposure to mechanical pressure in the upper limbs and awkward postures were the most prevalent risk factors. Pressure on the palm of the hand and the hand tool impacting the hand were also important risk factors. Some psychosocial factors such as lack of autonomy and mental workload were also associated shoulder tendinous diseases. The association of age, load handling, and awkward postures were the core risk factors responsible for most of the tendinous chronic injuries of the shoulder in this sample of car assembly workers., Conclusions: Both ergonomic and psychosocial factors were present and increased the risk of developing occupational chronic tendinopathies at the shoulder in this sample of workers. Aging, load handling, and awkward postures showed the strongest predictive values. Greater knowledge of how risk factors interact would facilitate the design of better preventive workplace strategies.

Background and Study Aims: There is widespread consensus on the need for better indicators of the effectiveness of healthcare. We carried out an analysis of the validity of amenable mortality as an indicator of the effectiveness of healthcare, focusing on the potential use in routine surveillance systems of between-country variations in rates of mortality. We assessed whether the introduction of specific healthcare innovations coincided with declines in mortality from potentially amenable causes in seven European countries. In this paper, we summarise the main results of this study and illustrate them for four conditions., Data and Methods: We identified 14 conditions for which considerable declines in mortality have been observed and for which there is reasonable evidence in the literature of the effectiveness of healthcare interventions to lower mortality. We determined the time at which these interventions were introduced and assessed whether the innovations coincided with favourable changes in the mortality trends from these conditions, measured using Poisson linear spline regression. All the evidence was then presented to a Delphi panel., Main Results: The timing of innovation and favourable change in mortality trends coincided for only a few conditions. Other reasons for mortality decline are likely to include diffusion and improved quality of interventions and in incidence of diseases and their risk factors, but there is insufficient evidence to differentiate these at present. For most conditions, a Delphi panel could not reach consensus on the role of current mortality levels as measures of effectiveness of healthcare., Discussion and Conclusions: Improvements in healthcare probably lowered mortality from many of the conditions that we studied but occurred in a much more diffuse way than we assumed in the study design. Quantification of the contribution of healthcare to mortality requires adequate data on timing of innovation and trends in diffusion and quality and in incidence of disease, none of which are currently available. Given these gaps in knowledge, between-country differences in levels of mortality from amenable conditions should not be used for routine surveillance of healthcare performance. The timing and pace of mortality decline from amenable conditions may provide better indicators of healthcare performance.