Introduction: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) play a crucial role in Mass Casualty Incidents (MCIs). To improve tracking and the quality of clinical information during MCIs, several electronic devices have been developed. This study aims to evaluate Italian EMS professionals’ perceptions of a hypothetical wearable device during MCIs, implement its use in MCIs, and improve MCI management and patient outcomes. Using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this study aimed to measure the perceived usefulness, the perceived ease of use, and the behavioral intention to use the device. It features a unique patient identifier, vital sign monitoring, LED-based triage code assignment, geolocation, and real-time wireless data transmission to a server. Methods: A voluntary and anonymous survey was electronically distributed to all 67 EMS dispatch centers across Italy. Following an introduction outlining the device’s functions, the questionnaire comprised questions for demographic data collection and questions to explore TAM constructs. Questions were structured using the seven-point linear numeric scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Results: Among the 141 respondents, the median age was 45; the majority were male (60%), nurses (67%), and reported five or more years of EMS experience (77%). 52% of them reported previous experience in MCI response. The survey showed excellent internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.95). Overall, participants considered the device useful for improving situational awareness, coordination, resource allocation, and patient care. However, regarding the perceived ease of use, no consensus emerged on the integration challenges in MCI workflows and the possible slowdown in rescues. Finally, most participants would use the device and would recommend its comprehensive adoption in future MCI responses. Conclusion: This study suggests that this hypothetical wearable device might be a promising tool valued by EMS professionals; however, further investigation is warranted to address the lack of consensus regarding its impact on patient care during MCI response.
Tambini et al. (Sun,) studied this question.