Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 50, Issue 3 , Pages 320-326, September 2007

Decisionmaking in Hospital Earthquake Evacuation: Does Distance From the Epicenter Matter?

Presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians Scientific Assembly Research Forum, October 2004, San Francisco, CA.

  • Carl H. Schultz, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, and the Emergency Department, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Carl H. Schultz, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, UCI Medical Center, Route #128, 101 City Drive, Orange, CA 92668; 714-456-3713, fax 714-456-3714.
    • ,
  • Kristi L. Koenig, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, and the Emergency Department, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA
    • ,
  • Roger J. Lewis, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Emergency Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, and Emergency Department, Harbor–University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance, CA.

Received 9 November 2006; received in revised form 27 February 2007; accepted 26 March 2007. published online 28 April 2007.

Study objective

Over large expanses, the risk for hospital damage from an earthquake attenuates as the distance from the epicenter increases, which may not be true within the immediate disaster zone (near field), however. The following study examines the impact of epicenter distance and ground motion on hospital evacuation and closure for those structures near the epicenter of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake and the implications for patient evacuation.

Methods

This is a retrospective case-control study of all hospitals reporting off-site evacuations or permanent closure because of damage from the January 17, 1994, earthquake in Northridge, CA. Control hospitals were randomly identified from those facilities that did not evacuate patients. Distances from the epicenter and peak ground accelerations were calculated for each hospital from Trinet ShakeMap data and compared.

Results

Eight hospitals evacuated patients (study group); 4 of these hospitals were condemned. These were compared to 8 hospitals that did not evacuate patients (control group). The median epicenter-to-hospital distance for evacuated facilities was 8.1 miles (interquartile range [IQRs] 4.0 to 17.2 miles), whereas that for nonevacuated facilities was 14.1 miles (IRQ 10.5 to 17.0 miles). The difference in the median distances was 6.0 miles (95% confidence interval –4.8 to 11.9 miles). The peak ground acceleration had a median of 0.77g (IQR 0.53 to 0.85g) for study hospitals and a median of 0.36g (IQR 0.24 to 0.50g) for control hospitals, where 1g equals the force of gravity. The difference in median acceleration of 0.41g (95% CI 0.14 to 0.55g) was significant (P=.009).

Conclusion

The distances from the epicenter for evacuated or condemned facilities and control hospitals do not appear to differ in the near field. Peak ground acceleration is a superior indicator of the risk for hospital damage and evacuation. Physicians can obtain these data in real time from the Internet and should transfer patients to facilities in areas of lower recorded peak ground acceleration regardless of distance from the epicenter.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supervising editor: Jonathan L. Burstein, MD

 Author contributions: CHS conceived of the idea for the article. CHS and KLK reviewed the literature on the subject. CHS, KLK, and RJL wrote and reviewed the article, as well as the references and the tables. RJL provided statistical support. CHS and KLK takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

 Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article, that may create any potential conflict of interest. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement. Study funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation CMS-9416277.

 Available online April 30, 2007.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0196-0644(07)00386-1

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.03.025

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 50, Issue 3 , Pages 320-326, September 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution