STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and operational effectiveness of US federal government guidance (Primary Response Incident Scene Management [PRISM]) for the initial response phase to chemical incidents. METHODS: The study was performed as a large-scale exercise (Operation DOWNPOUR). Volunteers were dosed with a chemical warfare agent simulant to quantify the efficacy of different iterations of dry, ladder pipe system, or technical decontamination. RESULTS: The most effective process was a triple combination of dry, ladder pipe system, and technical decontamination, which attained an average decontamination efficiency of approximately 100% on exposed hair and skin sites. Both wet decontamination processes (ladder pipe system and technical decontamination, alone or in combination with dry decontamination) were also effective (decontamination efficiency >96%). In compliant individuals, dry decontamination was effective (decontamination efficiency approximately 99%), but noncompliance (tentatively attributed to suboptimal communication) resulted in significantly reduced efficacy (decontamination efficiency approximately 70%). At-risk volunteers (because of chronic illness, disability, or language barrier) were 3 to 8 times slower than ambulatory casualties in undergoing dry and ladder pipe system decontamination, a consequence of which may be a reduction in the overall rate at which casualties can be processed. CONCLUSION: The PRISM incident response protocols are fit for purpose for ambulatory casualties. However, a more effective communication strategy is required for first responders (particularly when guiding dry decontamination). There is a clear need to develop more appropriate decontamination procedures for at-risk casualties.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and operational effectiveness of US federal government guidance (Primary Response Incident Scene Management [PRISM]) for the initial response phase to chemical incidents. METHODS: The study was performed as a large-scale exercise (Operation DOWNPOUR). Volunteers were dosed with a chemical warfare agent simulant to quantify the efficacy of different iterations of dry, ladder pipe system, or technical decontamination. RESULTS: The most effective process was a triple combination of dry, ladder pipe system, and technical decontamination, which attained an average decontamination efficiency of approximately 100% on exposed hair and skin sites. Both wet decontamination processes (ladder pipe system and technical decontamination, alone or in combination with dry decontamination) were also effective (decontamination efficiency >96%). In compliant individuals, dry decontamination was effective (decontamination efficiency approximately 99%), but noncompliance (tentatively attributed to suboptimal communication) resulted in significantly reduced efficacy (decontamination efficiency approximately 70%). At-risk volunteers (because of chronic illness, disability, or language barrier) were 3 to 8 times slower than ambulatory casualties in undergoing dry and ladder pipe system decontamination, a consequence of which may be a reduction in the overall rate at which casualties can be processed. CONCLUSION: The PRISM incident response protocols are fit for purpose for ambulatory casualties. However, a more effective communication strategy is required for first responders (particularly when guiding dry decontamination). There is a clear need to develop more appropriate decontamination procedures for at-risk casualties.
Authors: Thomas James; Lydia Izon-Cooper; Samuel Collins; Haydn Cole; Tim Marczylo Journal: J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev Date: 2022-02-27 Impact factor: 6.393
Authors: Samuel Collins; Natalie Williams; Felicity Southworth; Thomas James; Louise Davidson; Emily Orchard; Tim Marczylo; Richard Amlôt Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Felicity Southworth; Thomas James; Louise Davidson; Natalie Williams; Thomas Finnie; Tim Marczylo; Samuel Collins; Richard Amlôt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Samuel Collins; Thomas James; Holly Carter; Charles Symons; Felicity Southworth; Kerry Foxall; Tim Marczylo; Richard Amlôt Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Samuel Collins; Thomas James; Felicity Southworth; Louise Davidson; Natalie Williams; Emily Orchard; Tim Marczylo; Richard Amlôt Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 4.996