Scientific Framework for Research on Disaster and Mass Casualty Incident in Korea: Building Consensus Using Delphi Method

We aimed to determine the scientific framework for research on disaster and mass casualty incident (MCI) in Korea, especially Korean terminology, feasible definition, and epidemiologic indices. The two staged policy Delphi method was performed by instructors of National Disaster Life Support (NDLS®) with the constructed questionnaire containing items based on the literature review. The first-stage survey was conducted by 11 experts through two rounds of survey for making issue and option. The second-stage survey was conducted by 35 experts for making a generalized group based consensus. Experts were selected among instructors of National Disaster Life Support Course. Through two staged Delphi survey experts made consensus: 1) the Korean terminology "jaenan" with "disaster" and "dajung-sonsang-sago" with "MCI"; 2) the feasible definition of "disaster" as the events that have an effect on one or more municipal local government area (city-county-district) or results in ≥ 10 of death or ≥ 50 injured victims; 3) the feasible definition of MCI as the events that result in ≥ 6 casualties including death; 4) essential 31 epidemiologic indices. Experts could determine the scientific framework in Korea for research on disaster medicine, considering the distinct characteristics of Korea and current research trends.

[1]  J. Hiatt,et al.  Improved trauma system multicasualty incident response: comparison of two train crash disasters. , 2010, The Journal of trauma.

[2]  Frederick M Burkle,et al.  Three Decades of Disasters: A Review of Disaster-Specific Literature from 1977–2009 , 2009, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine.

[3]  大韓民國.  Statutes of the Republic of Korea , 2008 .

[4]  J. Boyd,et al.  Analysis of multiple casualty incidents – a prospective cohort study , 2005, Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica.

[5]  Thomas A Louis,et al.  Methodological challenges and contributions in disaster epidemiology. , 2005, Epidemiologic reviews.

[6]  H. Smithline,et al.  Mass casualty terrorist bombings: a comparison of outcomes by bombing type. , 2004, Annals of Emergency Medicine.

[7]  J. Arnold,et al.  Mass-Casualty, Terrorist Bombings: Implications for Emergency Department and Hospital Emergency Response (Part II) , 2003, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine.

[8]  Debarati Guha-Sapir,et al.  THE QUALITY AND ACCURACY OF DISASTER DATA A COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF THREE GLOBAL DATA SETS , 2002 .

[9]  Mary Kay Rayens,et al.  Building Consensus Using the Policy Delphi Method , 2000 .

[10]  S. Carley,et al.  Major incidents in Britain over the past 28 years: the case for the centralised reporting of major incidents. , 1998, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[11]  J. de Boer,et al.  Definition and classification of disasters: introduction of a disaster severity scale. , 1990, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[12]  W. Rutherford,et al.  Definition and Classification of Disasters , 1983, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine.