Australian major incident nomenclature: it may be a 'disaster' but in an 'emergency' it is just a mess.
BACKGROUND
A standardized major incident nomenclature has practical applications for medical communication and audit of the medical response to incidents.


METHODS
A telephone and fax survey of major incident nomenclature in State and Territory health service emergency management plans and 'disaster' legislation was carried out on 13 August 1999.


RESULTS
Within Australia there were a total of 13 different terms to describe incidents that could produce casualties: there were four definitions of the word 'disaster', eight definitions of the word 'emergency' and one definition of the word 'incident'.


CONCLUSIONS
Australia lacks a uniform system of classifying and recording mass casualty incidents. This prevents both the independent clinical audit of the medical response to an incident and the cross-border comparison of the effectiveness of trauma systems to deal with multiple casualties. Australia's geography highlights the need to develop a nomenclature that allows medical practitioners, in isolated environments, to accurately describe an incident and the medical support that is required. The Potential Injury-Creating Event (PICE) nomenclature is a simple system to describe the functional impact of an event upon a community and the level of medical support required. It can be used to provide the basis for the uniform reporting of the medical management of major incidents within Australia.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Peninsula Health, Frankston Hospital, Victoria, Australia. tonynoce@ozemail.com.au
A
A
Nocera
D001315:Australia; D004189:Disaster Planning / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004190:Disasters / Q000145:classification*; D004630:Emergencies / Q000145:classification*; D004632:Emergency Medical Services / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D009626:Terminology as Topic