Observational study assesses disaster preparedness in emergency physicians, indicating a need for improved training.
Introduction: Recent years have seen an increase in disaster situations worldwide. Emergency physicians (EPs) have a key role in all phases of disaster management. There is no current international description of Disaster Preparedness (DP) among European EPs. Methods: An international survey-based study of DP levels, using a modified KArP model, was conducted between April and June 2024 among post-residency EPs in 9 European countries. Their levels of education, training, and experience in Disaster Medicine were described. Correlations were sought between the participants’ general characteristics and DP-scores. Results: Results from 813 participants were collected. Mean rP-score was 66,54% (SD 14,99) and mean KArP-score was 71,83% (SD 12,45). Only half of the participants reported a dedicated practical training in Disaster Medicine during specialty training, whereas almost 25% of all participants reported no Disaster Medicine training. Only 57% reported full-scale disaster exercises in the previous 12 months. Significant differences were found from one country to another in levels of education and training in Disaster Medicine, as well as in DP-scores. Several factors were identified that were significantly associated with DP-scores. DP-scores were significantly lower among pediatric EPs. Conclusion: It is crucial to improve and harmonize individual and collective DP in European EPs. It is particularly critical to improve DP levels in pediatric EPs. Based on the results, simple checklists aimed at optimizing individual and collective DP levels were proposed. This is the first international description of DP among European EPs. Further studies are needed to validate this EP-specific KArP-tool, to continue identifying factors associated with improved DP-scores in EPs, and to study the impact of interventions aimed at optimizing DP, both individually and at department-level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mortelmans et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: