
pmid: 32342773
In the decade since the original development of crisis standards of care (CSC) via the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, multiple legal/policy concerns have arisen, centered on 2 key questions: (1) what legal “triggers” justify shifts to CSC?; and (2) what evidence substantiates critical medical/ public health choices?
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, U.S., Health and Medicine Division, Natural Disasters, Advisory Committees, Humans, Mass Casualty Incidents, Disaster Planning, Guidelines as Topic, Standard of Care, United States, Disease Outbreaks
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, U.S., Health and Medicine Division, Natural Disasters, Advisory Committees, Humans, Mass Casualty Incidents, Disaster Planning, Guidelines as Topic, Standard of Care, United States, Disease Outbreaks
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 6 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
