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.

Through in-depth interviews, this study aimed to understand perspectives of key stakeholders regarding the decision to curtail academic operations in the setting of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak before the declaration of a pandemic on March 11, 2020, and how such processes may be optimized in the future to best protect public health and safety.

Virtual interviews with key stakeholders from 4 academic institutions were conducted from September to December 2020 using a standardized interview question template. The interviews lasted approximately 30-45 minutes and each interview was recorded with permission. The interviews were then transcribed and reviewed for qualitative analysis.

The decision to curtail academic operations involved several common themes, such as discussing how institutions would control the outbreak and the process of transitioning to virtual learning and remote work. Universities were monitoring other universities’ responses as well as evaluating the prevalence of cases nationally and globally. Risks and challenges identified included housing for international students, financial implications, and loss of academic productivity.

The decision-making process may be optimized in the future by focusing on communication within a smaller committee, prioritizing epidemiology over fiscal implications, and embracing an openness to consider new strategies. Further research regarding this topic should be pursued to best protect public health and safety.

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.