A policy management game for mass casualty incidents: an experimental study

  • Marion S. Rauner
  • Helmut Niessner
  • Ulrike Leopold-Wildburger
  • Natasa Peric
  • Teresa Herdlicka
Article

Abstract

The number of complex and unique mass casualty incidents has increased due to natural and technological disasters as well as man-made disasters such as political instabilities, economic recession, and terrorism. Thus, health care policy-makers such as the Austrian Samaritan Organization have been continuously improving the training of emergency staff to enable them to quickly evacuate an emergency site, to minimize the number of fatalities at the incident site, and to decrease the patients’ waiting time for treatment. We developed a policy management game to provide a training tool for emergency staff to support such policy-makers. In addition, with this game students can be educated on scheduling and planning techniques such as simulation, queuing theory, and resource allocation. To investigate the potential of our policy management game, we conducted an experimental study with 96 participants including students, practitioners from health care services, and researchers. They acted as incident commanders to decide on sending medical staff to triage, to different treatment rooms for care and to on-site transportation, as well as to transportation to hospitals during three game runs. The participants rated the general structure and organization of the experiment as high. The performance was also improved by many participants during the experiment. We found differences in performance among the different participant groups.

Keywords

Policy simulator Management game Health care Mass casuality incidents Experimental study 

References

  1. Batty M (2008) The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science 319:769–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker O, Feit T, Hofer V, Leopold-Wildburger U, Selten R (2007) Educational effects in an experiment with the management game SINTO-Market. Cent Eur J Oper Res Econ 15(4):301–308CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Benesch T (2008) Der Schlüssel zur Statistik: datenbeurteilung mithilfe von SPSS. Facultas VerlagGoogle Scholar
  4. Blötz U (2005) Planspiele in der beruflichen Bildung. W. Bertelsmann Verlag, BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  5. Brailsford S, Kozan E, Rauner MS (2012) Health care management. Flex Serv Manuf J 24(4):375–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandl B, Leopold-Wildburger U, Mietek A, Pickl S (2010) How do commission rates influence a firm’s success? Statistical analysis of a corporate strategy simulation experiment. CEJOR 18(4):553–566CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandt H (2008) Planung und entwicklung von psychologischen tests und fragebogen. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–72Google Scholar
  8. Camerer CF (2007) Neuroeconomics: using neuroscience to make economic predictions. Econ J 117(519):C26–C42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carriere JSA, Cheyne JA, Smilek D (2008) Everyday attention lapses and memory failures: the affective consequences of mindlessness. Conscious Cogn 17(3):835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters - CRED (2013) EM-DAT: the international disaster database. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://www.emdat.be/
  11. Dieleman H, Huisingh D (2006) Games by which to learn and teach about sustainable development: exploring the relevance of games and experiential learning for sustainability. J Clean Prod 14(9):837–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dill WR, Doppelt N (1963) The acquisition of experience in a complex management game. Manage Sci 10(1):30–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drucker PF (2006) Classic drucker: essential wisdom of peter drucker from the pages of harvard business review. Harvard Business Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer KW (2009) Mind, brain, and education: building a scientific groundwork for learning and teaching. Mind Brain Educ 3(1):3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garris R, Ahlers R, Driskell J (2002) Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice model. Simul Gaming 33(4):441–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geier B (2006) Evaluation eines netzbasierten unternehmensplanspiels—Eine problemorientierte lernumgebung für die kaufmännische Aus- und Weiterbildung. Doktorarbeit, LMU, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  17. Hans E, Nieberg T (2007) Operating room manager game. Inf Trans Educ 8(1):25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansak P, Petutschnigg B, Böbel M, Hündorf H-P, Lipp R, Veith J (2003) LPN-San österreich—lehrbuch für rettungssanitäter, betriebssanitäter und bundesheersanitäter. Stumpf and Kossendey, EdewechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G (2003) The health utilities index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koehler G, Foley D, Jones M (1992) A computer simulation of a California casualty collection point used to respond to a major earthquake. Prehosp Disaster Med 7(4):339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolb D (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  22. Kotz D (2013) Injury toll from Marathon bombs reduced to 264. The Boston Globe, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Kraus M, Rauner MS, Schwarz S (2010) Hospital management games: a taxonomy and extensive review. CEJOR 18(4):567–591CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Lane J, Slavin S, Ziv A (2001) Simulation in medical education: a review. Simul Gaming 32(3):297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lown BA (2013) Reflections on compassion in the midst of violence. J Gen Intern Med 28(12):1554–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marot J (2013) Zugunglück in Spanien: Lokführer viel zu schnell unterwegs. Der StandardGoogle Scholar
  27. Marx F, Binsfeld M, Franke T (2013) Medizinischer Einsatz bei der Loveparade 2010 in Duisburg. Der Anaesthesist 62(12):1010–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ozcan YA (2008) Health care benchmarking and performance evaluation, an assessment using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Ozcan YA (2009) Quantitative methods in health care management: techniques and applications. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  30. Österreichisches Rotes Kreuz (2007) Vorschriften. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://vorschriften.roteskreuz.at
  31. Paseka A (2008) Wie Kinder zu Mädchen und Buben werden. Einige Erkenntnisse aus der Sozialisations-und Geschlechterforschung. In Geschlecht lernen. Innsbruck: Studienverlag, pp 15–31Google Scholar
  32. Peric N, Herdlicka T (2012) Das SanHiSt-Planspiel für den Aufbau einer Sanitätshilfsstelle bei Großschadenseinsätzen—Eine experimentelle Analyse des simulationsbasierten Managementplanspiels zur Unterstützung des effektiven und effizienten Einsatzes von Rettungsdiensten. Vienna: Master Thesis, University of ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. Pfaff MS, Drury JL, Klein GL, More LD, Moon SP, Liu Y (2010) Weighing decisions: aiding emergency response decision making via option awareness. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Technologies for Homeland Security Conference, Waltham, MA, pp 251–257Google Scholar
  34. Pfaff MS, Klein GL, Drury JL, Moon SP, Liu Y, Entezari SO (2013) Supporting complex decision making through option awareness. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 7(2):155–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pidd M (2004) Computer simulation in management science. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  36. Pidgeon N, O’Leary M (2000) An-made disasters: why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail. Saf Sci 34(1):15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinedo M (2008) Scheduling: theory, algorithms, and systems. Springer, NewtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Rabin R, de Charro F (2001) EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Annu Med 33(5):337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rapoport A, Dale PS (1966) The “end” and “start” effects in iterated prisoner’s dilemma. J Confl Resolut 10(3):363–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rauner MS, Kraus M, Schwarz S (2008) Competition under different reimbursement systems: the concept of an internet-based hospital management game. Eur J Oper Res 185(3):948–963CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Rauner MS, Schaffhauser-Linzatti M, Niessner H (2012) Resource planning for ambulance services in mass casualty incidents: a DES-based policy model. Health Care Manag Sci 15(3):254–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rempe A, Klösters K (2006) Das Planspiel als Entscheidungstraining. W. Kohlhammer-Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  43. Rinaldi SM, Peerenboom JP, Kelly TK (2001) Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. Control Syst IEEE 21(6):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schulmeister R (1996) Grundlagen hypermedialer Lernsysteme. Theorie - Didaktik - Design. Addison-Wesley, BonnGoogle Scholar
  45. Sefrin P (2005) Die Rolle des Behandlungsplatzes bei Massenanfall von Verletzten. Der Notarzt 21(06):189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith SW, Portelli I, Narzisi G, Nelson LS, Menges F, Rekow ED, Mincer JS, Mishra B, Goldfrank LR (2009) A novel approach to multihazard modeling and simulation. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 3(2):75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Solecki W, Seto KC, Marcotullio PJ (2013) It’s time for an urbanization science. Environ: Sci Policy Sustain Dev 55(1):12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Solga H, Pfahl L (2009) Doing Gender Im Technisch-Naturwissen-Schaftlichen Bereich. Förderung des Nachwuchses In Technik und Naturwissenschaft. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 155–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Streufert S, Satish U, Barach P (2001) Improving medical care: the use of simulation technology. Simul Gaming 32(2):164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vissers J, Beech R (eds) (2005) Health operations management: patient flow logistics in health care (routledge health management). Routledge Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. XJ Technologies Company (2007) AnyLogic 6—user’s guideGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion S. Rauner
    • 1
  • Helmut Niessner
    • 2
  • Ulrike Leopold-Wildburger
    • 3
  • Natasa Peric
    • 2
  • Teresa Herdlicka
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Innovation and Technology ManagementUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Statistics and Operations ResearchKarl-Franzens-University GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations