Talk:Mass casualty incident

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as High-importance).

Disaster management Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hrabal41. Peer reviewers: Trialbyfire911.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I'm not convinced that 9/11 qualifies as an MCI. The nature of the event was such that there were no living patients to treat, apart from the occasional rescuer who managed to get injured after the fact. I'm not an absolute authority, but that wouild be my take. Btw - welcome to the Task Force!Emrgmgmtca (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed that reference because you're right! Frmatt (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated 9/11 back into the lead. It is an event known internationally and killed hundreds and injured thousands. Peter.C • talk 02:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The most common types of MCI's are generally caused by terrorism or natural disasters." - Depends on the definition of course but from a general point of view traffic accidents and fires appear to be the most common causes. See these studies: [[1]] and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24673664 Twingate (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

In the lead, do you mean "outnumbered by" instead of "overwhelmed by"? If the incident involves trivial abrasions -- a several kids scrape their knees on the playground -- then one untrained person can apply band-aids to every child without being "overwhelmed". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, a situation like the one you describe would not be considered a mass casualty incident...it is easy to be outnumbered by patients, but if only negligible care is needed, then it's not a mass casualty incident because the first responding crew could deal with it on their own. I used "overwhelmed by" instead of "outnumbered by" because of this. Frmatt (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite sensible to me. Perhaps the example should refer to "three severely injured people" then, since one serious case and two trivial ones is unlikely to be overwhelming. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little wary about changing it, because it is entirely dependent on the situation and relies a lot on the judgement of the personnel on-site. We're not trying to be one-hundred percent accurate with the lead, just to give an idea of what an MCI is. Frmatt (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In-Hospital Care

I'd greatly appreciate any assistance from emergency department personnel who can provide information about what happens in hospitals during a mass-casualty incident. I've put some basic things in, but I don't really know. Frmatt (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try leaving a note for User:Jmh649 in a couple of weeks. I think he's offwiki for the next two weeks, but I believe he's a physician in a Canadian emergency department. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, have done so! Frmatt (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide View?

To whomever tagged this with the worldwide view tag, please explain what you mean. Other than some references to North American systems, this article is generic and describes how a Mass Casualty Incident would run just about anywhere. Thank you. Frmatt (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Mass casualty event

Two articles about exactly the same subject Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: I totally agree. No one has commented in 4 months. Go for it! Or I can do it. --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A merge makes sense as long as separate definitions are maintained. From a hospital perspective, a mass-casualty incident threatens to overwhelm the capabilities of a single hospital. A mass-casualty event threatens to overwhelm the capabilities of multiple hospitals.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mass-casualty incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170430004259/https://www.fema.gov/incident-command-system-resources to https://www.fema.gov/incident-command-system-resources

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]