BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to discuss the adequacy of current arrangements for dealing with major chemical incidents through the offices of the Consultant in Communicable Disease Control (CCDC). METHOD: This paper describes the public health response to an explosion at a chemical works which was followed by illnesses of unknown aetiology in emergency service workers and other people. An outline of the circumstances as they presented themselves and a description of the lessons learned from the management of this disaster are presented alongside an overview of the prevailing infrastructure of advice, support and training available to CsCDC. Key issues relevant to these areas are discussed. RESULTS: A total of 181 potential cases were notified to the investigating team, of whom 115 had an illness possibly associated with the explosion. Of these, 93 suffered a gastrointestinal illness and 68 had so-called 'toxic' symptoms (eye, skin and bronchopulmonary irritation). Forty-six people had both sets of symptoms at the same time. CONCLUSIONS: Current arrangements dictate that public health physicians have a role in incidents such as this, whether they seek such a position or not. The specialty would do well to consider developing formal disaster training schemes for those likely to have to manage major incidents (usually the CCDC), and would benefit from the setting up of a chemical-environmental incident surveillance-resource centre. Such a centre should have a remit for teaching and training, information support, incident recording, coordination of expert resources, and liaison between interested bodies both nationally and internationally.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to discuss the adequacy of current arrangements for dealing with major chemical incidents through the offices of the Consultant in Communicable Disease Control (CCDC). METHOD: This paper describes the public health response to an explosion at a chemical works which was followed by illnesses of unknown aetiology in emergency service workers and other people. An outline of the circumstances as they presented themselves and a description of the lessons learned from the management of this disaster are presented alongside an overview of the prevailing infrastructure of advice, support and training available to CsCDC. Key issues relevant to these areas are discussed. RESULTS: A total of 181 potential cases were notified to the investigating team, of whom 115 had an illness possibly associated with the explosion. Of these, 93 suffered a gastrointestinal illness and 68 had so-called 'toxic' symptoms (eye, skin and bronchopulmonary irritation). Forty-six people had both sets of symptoms at the same time. CONCLUSIONS: Current arrangements dictate that public health physicians have a role in incidents such as this, whether they seek such a position or not. The specialty would do well to consider developing formal disaster training schemes for those likely to have to manage major incidents (usually the CCDC), and would benefit from the setting up of a chemical-environmental incident surveillance-resource centre. Such a centre should have a remit for teaching and training, information support, incident recording, coordination of expert resources, and liaison between interested bodies both nationally and internationally.
Authors: H J Bowen; S R Palmer; H M Fielder; G Coleman; P A Routledge; D L Fone Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 3.710