Chemical exposure preparedness for emergency departments in a midwestern city

Mark Fenzl, DO, Heath Jolliff, DO, Marcus Topinka, MD

Abstract


Objective: To determine if each hospital in a large Midwestern city has the resources to treat 50 patients exposed to terrorist chemical agents and/or industrial chemicals.
Design: Surveys specific to each department were sent to emergency department (ED) nursing supervisors, safety officers, and pharmacy directors of each hospital.
Setting: The survey was performed in a large Midwestern city (metropolitan population of 1,500,000).
Participants: Nine hospitals.
Main Outcome Measures: The survey measured the presence of written materials, amount of equipment, quantities of pharmaceuticals, and number of staff available in each hospital. Hospital staff also rated the preparedness of their hospital.
Results: Twelve of the 27 respondents returned the survey for a response rate of 44 percent. None of the EDs had a known cooperative written plan with the police or fire departments. Three safety officers reported limited numbers of hospital security personnel and a total of 35 ventilators for respiratory failure. The four pharmacy directors reported limited sum doses of atropine (315), cyanide antidote (10 complete kits), and succimer (100). Respondents who felt qualified to evaluate the ED gave a mean score of 5.4 on a scale of 1-10 when asked how prepared they felt their ED was to treat 50 chemical exposure patients.
Conclusions: Despite hospital staff rating chemical exposure preparedness as 5.4, it is unlikely that each hospital could handle 50 patients exposed to some chemicals due to lack of prearranged coordination, security, antidotes, and ventilators.


Keywords


disaster preparedness, hospital disaster plans, HAZMAT

Full Text:

PDF

References


Greenberg MI, Hendrickson RG: Report of the CIMERC/Drexel University emergency department terrorism preparedness consensus panel. Ann Emerg Med. 2003; 10(7): 783-788.

Broughton E: The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: A review. Environ Health Global Access Sci Source. 2005; 4: 1-6.

Sharma DC: Bhopal: 20 years on. Lancet. 2005; 365(9454): 111-112.

Noland D: Collision course. Popular Mech. 2005; 182(4): 66-67.

Center for Disease Control: Public health consequences from hazardous substances acutely released during rail transit—South Carolina, 2005; Selected States, 1999-2004. MMWR 2005; 54(3): 64-67.

Miyaki K, Nishiwaki Y, Maekawa K, et al.: Effects of sarin on the nervous system of subway workers seven years after the Tokyo subway sarin attack. J Occup Health. 2005; 47(4): 299-304.

Cone DC, Davidson SJ: Hazardous materials preparedness in the emergency department. Prehospital Emergency Care. 1997; 1(2): 85-90.

Ghilarducci DP, Pirrallo RG, Hegmann KT: Hazardous materials readiness of United States level 1 trauma centers. J Emerg Med. 2000; 42(7): 683-692.

Greenberg MI, Jurgens SM, Gracely EJ: Emergency department preparedness for the evaluation and treatment of victims of biological or chemical terrorist attack. J Emerg Med. 2002; 22(3): 275-276.

Treat KN,Williams JM, Furbee PM, et al.: Hospital preparedness for weapons of mass destruction incidents: An initial assessment. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 38(5): 562-565.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Hazard communication standard 29 CFR 1910.1200. Federal Register. 1983; 48: 53280-53348.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2008.0034

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.