This study sought to assess undergraduate students’ knowledge and attitudes surrounding perceived self-efficacy and threats in various common emergencies in communities of higher education.

Self-reported perceptions of knowledge and skills, as well as attitudes and beliefs regarding education and training, obligation to respond, safety, psychological readiness, efficacy, personal preparedness, and willingness to respond were investigated through 3 representative scenarios via a web-based survey.

Among 970 respondents, approximately 60% reported their university had adequately prepared them for various emergencies while 84% reported the university should provide such training. Respondents with high self-efficacy were significantly more likely than those with low self-efficacy to be willing to respond in whatever capacity needed across all scenarios.

There is a gap between perceived student preparedness for emergencies and training received. Students with high self-efficacy were the most likely to be willing to respond, which may be useful for future training initiatives.

We sought to determine who is involved in the care of a trauma patient.

We recorded hospital personnel involved in 24 adult Priority 1 trauma patient admissions for 12 h or until patient demise. Hospital personnel were delineated by professional background and role.

We cataloged 19 males and 5 females with a median age of 50-y-old (interquartile range [IQR], 35.5-67.5). The average number of hospital personnel involved was 79.71 (standard deviation, 17.62; standard error 3.6). A median of 51.2% (IQR, 43.4%-59.8%) of personnel were first involved within hour 1. More personnel were involved in direct versus indirect care (median 54.5 [IQR, 47.5-67.0] vs 25.0 [IQR, 22.0-30.5]; P < 0.0001). Median number of health-care professionals and auxiliary staff were 74.5 (IQR, 63.5-90.5) and 6.0 (IQR, 5.0-7.0), respectively. More personnel were first involved in hospital locations external to the emergency department (median, 53.0 [IQR, 41.5-63.0] vs 27.5 [IQR, 24.0-30.0]; P < 0.0001). No differences existed in total personnel by Injury Severity Score (P = 0.1266), day (P = 0.7270), or time of admission (P = 0.2098).

A large number of hospital personnel with varying job responsibilities respond to severe trauma. These data may guide hospital staffing and disaster preparedness policies.

To compare long-term survival of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients with deep brain stimulation (DBS) to matched controls, and examine whether DBS was associated with differences in injurious falls, long-term care, and home care.

Using administrative health data (Ontario, Canada), we examined DBS outcomes within a cohort of individuals diagnosed with PD between 1997 and 2012. Patients receiving DBS were matched with non-DBS controls by age, sex, PD diagnosis date, time with PD, and a propensity score. Survival between groups was compared using the log-rank test and marginal Cox proportional hazards regression. Cumulative incidence function curves and marginal subdistribution hazard models were used to assess effects of DBS on falls, long-term care admission, and home care use, with death as a competing risk.

There were 260 DBS recipients matched with 551 controls. Patients undergoing DBS did not experience a significant survival advantage compared to controls (log-rank test p = 0.50; HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65–1.22). Among patients <65 years of age, DBS recipients had a significantly reduced risk of death (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28–0.84). Patients receiving DBS were more likely than controls to receive care for falls (HR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.19–2.05) and home care (HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.32–1.90), while long-term care admission was similar between groups.

Receiving DBS may increase survival for younger PD patients who undergo DBS. Future studies should examine whether survival benefits may be attributed to effects on PD or the absence of comorbidities that influence mortality.