This study, therefore, aims to address the current lack of knowledge about appropriate clinical equipment for dealing with a mass Selleckchem Afatinib casualties big bang [1] event. Specific research questions are: what are a) the most important items of clinical equipment required to treat 100 people at the scene of a big bang mass

casualties event?; and b) the minimum quantities required of each item? Methods Participants were asked to consider what would be required to provide immediate patient care for 100 people in the pre-hospital phase of a big bang mass casualties incident. The study was based on current UK planning assumptions [1,5] for such events (Table 1). The figure of 100 people was chosen, firstly as it was a conceptually straightforward number Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of casualties to conceptualize, and secondly as it would

allow easy calculations of quantities of items required at mass casualty incidents, as the results of the study could be simply multiplied as required. Table 1 Planning assumptions for the potential percentages of casualties in each category[1,4] A modified Delphi study method was used. Originally developed Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical by the RAND Corporation in the 1950’s [6], the Delphi method has since been used extensively in healthcare research [7-11], including emergency care research [12-17], amongst other fields. Since its inception, many Delphi studies have varied slightly from the original RAND Corporation method, and it is therefore common to find studies described Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical as ‘modified Delphi studies’, or using a Delphi approach [7]. Delphi studies use a form of consensus methodology to develop a reliable consensus of a group of experts on a specific topic. The Delphi method involves a series of questionnaires, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical or ‘rounds’ (typically 3), on a specific topic being completed by subject experts. These rounds are interspersed by controlled feedback which includes Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the participant’s own judgment and the overall group judgment for comparison. Participants are then given the opportunity to revise their judgment in the following round if they so desire. Participants’ individual responses are unknown to the group [18]. Given the variability of study methods

that have been used and described as ‘Delphi’, it is important to outline the features that ensure the credibility of findings for this approach. These are: a clear description of why a Delphi method has been used; the choice of participants that almost form the expert panel; transparency of data collection procedures used; the choice of consensus level; and the means of dissemination [19]. A study reference group comprised of a small number of key leaders in the field was formed to support the study. Key tasks for the group were to: agree the study protocol; identify potential participants; provide expert comment on the study findings. An opinion on the status of this study was sought from the NHS Lothian Ethics Committee who advised that for the purposes of ethical approval, the study was classifiable as a service evaluation [20].