Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J F Waeckerle

Publications and source records attributed to J F Waeckerle.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Executive summary: developing objectives, content, and competencies for the training of emergency medical technicians, emergency physicians, and emergency nurses to care for casualties resulting from nuclear, biological, or chemical incidents.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The task force assessed the needs, demands, feasibility, and content of training for US civilian emergency medical responders (paramedics, nurses, and physicians) for nuclear/biological/chemical (NBC) terrorism. METHODS: A task force representing key professional organizations, stakeholders, and disciplines involved in emergency medical response conducted an iterated instructional-design analysis on the feasibility and content of such training with input from educational professionals. We then analyzed 6 previously developed training courses for their congruence with our recommendations. RESULTS: The task force produced descriptions of learning groups, content and learning objectives, and barriers and challenges to NBC education. Access to training and sustainment of learning (retention of knowledge) represent the significant barriers. The courses analyzed by the task force did not meet all objectives and challenges addressed. CONCLUSION: The task force recommends training programs and materials need to be developed to overcome the identified barriers and challenges to learning for these audiences. Furthermore, the task force recommends incorporating NBC training into standard training programs for emergency medical professionals.

Bioterrorism↗
PubMed1999

Emergency department impact of the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To collect descriptive epidemiologic injury data on patients who suffered acute injuries after the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing and to describe the effect on metropolitan emergency departments. METHODS: A retrospective review of the medical records of victims seen for injury or illness related to the bombing at 1 of the 13 study hospitals from 9:02 AM to midnight April 19, 1995. Rescue workers and nontransported fatalities were excluded. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-eight patients met inclusion criteria; 72 (18.6%) were admitted, 312 (80.4%) were treated and released, 3 (.7%) were dead on arrival, and 1 had undocumented disposition. Patients requiring admission took longer to arrive to EDs than patients treated and released (P =.0065). The EDs geographically closest to the blast site (1.5 radial miles) received significantly more victims than more distant EDs (P <.0001). Among the 90 patients with documented prehospital care, the most common interventions were spinal immobilization (964/90, 71.1%), field dressings (40/90, 44.4%), and intravenous fluids (32/90, 35.5%). No patients requiring prehospital CPR survived. Patients transported by EMS had higher admission rates than those arriving by any other mode (P <.0001). The most common procedures performed were wound care and intravenous infusion lines. The most common diagnoses were lacerations/contusion, fractures, strains, head injury, abrasions, and soft tissue foreign bodies. Tetanus toxoid, antibiotics, and analgesics were the most common pharmaceutical agents used. Plain radiology, computed tomographic radiology, and the hospital laboratory were the most significantly utilized ancillary services. CONCLUSION: EMS providers tended to transport the more seriously injured patients, who tended to arrive in a second wave at EDs. The closest hospitals received the greatest number of victims by all transport methods. The effects on pharmaceutical use and ancillary service were consistent with the care of penetrating and blunt trauma. The diagnoses in the ED support previous reports of the complex but often nonlethal nature of bombing injuries.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Emergency physicians and biological terrorism.

Recent developments, such as the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the sarin attacks in Tokyo and Matsumoto, Japan, and US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, have heightened fears of terrorist attacks. Future terrorist activities will continue to involve bombs and firearms, but may also include weapons of mass destruction, including biological agents. Recent US government initiatives have recognized the threats to our country from these weapons and have funded planning and response programs. These preparedness programs are being built on existing infrastructure of EMS and fire services' plans for hazardous materials response. Appropriate emergency department and hospital response, guided by public health principles, could significantly limit the morbidity and mortality of biological warfare agents. Inappropriate response by the medical community may worsen a chaotic and potentially devastating situation. This article discusses planning and response issues central to a potential bioterrorism event.

Biological Warfare↗
PubMed1999

Chemical warfare agents: emergency medical and emergency public health issues.

The threat of exposure to chemical warfare agents has traditionally been considered a military issue. Several recent events have demonstrated that civilians may also be exposed to these agents. The intentional or unintentional release of a chemical warfare agent in a civilian community has the potential to create thousands of casualties, thereby overwhelming local health and medical resources. The resources of US communities to respond to chemical incidents have been designed primarily for industrial agents, but must be expanded and developed regarding incident management, agent detection, protection of emergency personnel, and clinical care. We present an overview of the risk that chemical warfare agents presently pose to civilian populations and a discussion of the emergency medical and emergency public health issues related to preparedness and response.

Chemical Warfare↗
PubMed1998

Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.

CONTEXT: Quality of reviewers is crucial to journal quality, but there are usually too many for editors to know them all personally. A reliable method of rating them (for education and monitoring) is needed. OBJECTIVE: Whether editors' quality ratings of peer reviewers are reliable and how they compare with other performance measures. DESIGN: A 3.5-year prospective observational study. SETTING: Peer-reviewed journal. PARTICIPANTS: All editors and peer reviewers who reviewed at least 3 manuscripts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reviewer quality ratings, individual reviewer rate of recommendation for acceptance, congruence between reviewer recommendation and editorial decision (decision congruence), and accuracy in reporting flaws in a masked test manuscript. INTERVENTIONS: Editors rated the quality of each review on a subjective 1 to 5 scale. RESULTS: A total of 4161 reviews of 973 manuscripts by 395 reviewers were studied. The within-reviewer intraclass correlation was 0.44 (P<.001), indicating that 20% of the variance seen in the review ratings was attributable to the reviewer. Intraclass correlations for editor and manuscript were only 0.24 and 0.12, respectively. Reviewer average quality ratings correlated poorly with the rate of recommendation for acceptance (R=-0.34) and congruence with editorial decision (R=0.26). Among 124 reviewers of the fictitious manuscript, the mean quality rating for each reviewer was modestly correlated with the number of flaws they reported (R=0.53). Highly rated reviewers reported twice as many flaws as poorly rated reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective editor ratings of individual reviewers were moderately reliable and correlated with reviewer ability to report manuscript flaws. Individual reviewer rate of recommendation for acceptance and decision congruence might be thought to be markers of a discriminating (ie, high-quality) reviewer, but these variables were poorly correlated with editors' ratings of review quality or the reviewer's ability to detect flaws in a fictitious manuscript. Therefore, they cannot be substituted for actual quality ratings by editors.

Peer Review↗
PubMed1998

Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.

CONTEXT: In a previous study, we found that masking success was higher at a journal that masked reviewers to author identity. We hypothesized that masking policy or other factors could be associated with masking success. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in success of masking reviewers to author identity at 7 biomedical journals and to identify factors associated with these differences. DESIGN: Written questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Reviewers at 3 journals with a long-standing policy of masking author identity (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Epidemiology, and Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) and 4 journals without a policy of masking author identity (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Masking success (percentage of reviewers successfully masked) and reviewer characteristics associated with masking. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in masking success between journals with a policy of masking (60%) and those without (58%) (P= .92). We found no association between masking success and a policy of masking when adjusted for the reviewer characteristics of age, sex, years of reviewing experience, number of articles published, number of articles reviewed, percentage of time spent in research, editorial experience, or academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.8; P=.43). In multivariable analysis of reviewer characteristics, reviewers spending a greater percentage of time in research, the only significant predictor of masking success, were less likely to be successfully masked (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) (P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Masking success appears unrelated to a journal policy of masking, but is associated with reviewers' research experience and could be affected by other characteristics. Using reviewers with less research and reviewing experience might increase masking success, but the effect on review quality is unknown.

Authorship↗
PubMed1998

Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a fictitious manuscript into which purposeful errors were placed could be used as an instrument to evaluate peer reviewer performance. METHODS: An instrument for reviewer evaluation was created in the form of a fictitious manuscript into which deliberate errors were placed in order to develop an approach for the analysis of peer reviewer performance. The manuscript described a double-blind, placebo control study purportedly demonstrating that intravenous propranolol reduced the pain of acute migraine headache. There were 10 major and 13 minor errors placed in the manuscript. The work was distributed to all reviewers of Annals of Emergency Medicine for review. RESULTS: The manuscript was sent to 262 reviewers; 203 (78%) reviews were returned. One-hundred ninety-nine reviewers recommended a disposition for the manuscript: 15 recommended acceptance, 117 rejection, and 67 revision. The 15 who recommended acceptance identified 17.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.3% to 23.4%) of the major and 11.8% (CI 7.3% to 16.3%) of the minor errors. The 117 who recommended rejection identified 39.1 % (CI 36.3% to 41.9%) of the major and 25.2% (CI 23.0% to 27.4%) of the minor errors. The 67 who recommended revision identified 29.6% (CI 26.1% to 33.1%) of the major and 22.0% (CI 19.3% to 24.8%) of the minor errors. The number of errors identified differed significantly across recommended disposition. Sixty-eight percent of the reviewers did not realize that the conclusions of the work were not supported by the results. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the use of a preconceived manuscript into which purposeful errors are placed may be a viable approach to evaluate reviewer performance. Peer reviewers in this study failed to identify two thirds of the major errors in such a manuscript.

Confidence Intervals↗
PubMed1998

Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether attendance at a voluntary training workshop improves quality ratings of medical journal peer reviewers. METHODS: Peer reviewers for Annals of Emergency Medicine who completed two or more reviews during the 20 months before or the 20 months after October 1995 were eligible. Reviews were routinely rated by editors on a subjective 5-point quality scale. Comparisons were made between reviewers who chose to attend a 4-hour workshop on peer review sponsored by the journal in 1995 (attendees) and 2 groups of reviewers who did not attend: controls matched for review quality and number of reviews completed before the workshop, and unmatched controls. Guest reviewers were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 298 reviewers completed 1906 reviews before the workshop and 2,194 after the workshop; 2,117 of these reviews were rated by editors. Forty-five attendees participated in the workshop, 39 of whom had sufficient ratings for analysis. Matched controls were almost identical in performance to attendees, but unmatched controls had performed fewer reviews and had lower average ratings before the workshop. There was no significant change in any performance measurement after the workshop, including average quality rating, percent change in quality rating, odds ratio for recommending acceptance, and odds ratio for congruence with editor's decision. CONCLUSION: In a self-selected group of experienced reviewers who attended a 4-hour workshop on peer review, no effect could be identified in subsequent performance as measured by editors' quality ratings or reviewer performance statistics.

Case-Control Studies↗