D C Cone1, S J Davidson. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences, Philadelphia, PA 19129, USA. cone@allegheny.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted to examine the preparedness of emergency departments (EDs) to safely receive, decontaminate, and treat chemically contaminated patients. METHODS: The safety officers of all 58 acute-care hospitals in the five-county philadelphia metropolitan region were surveyed by mail, with a repeat mailing to nonresponders followed by telephone contact. The 16 survey questions addressed the ability of EDs to safely decontaminate and treat chemically contaminated patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 58 hospitals (66%) returned usable surveys. Of these, 24 (63%) have a written plan for decontamination and treatment of chemically contaminated patients in the ED, and 19 (50%) have a hospital-wide disaster plan that includes contingencies for decontamination and treatment of one or more chemically contaminated patients. Thirteen hospitals (34%) conducted a drill of either of these plans in 1994. Twenty (53%) EDs have a specific treatment area for chemically contaminated patients. A stock of supplies for protecting the ED from secondary contamination is maintained by 16 (42%). While 24 (63%) store personal protective equipment, most of these involve only gowns, gloves, and surgical masks; only 13 provide any type of respiratory protection. Nine respondents were certain that patients brought in by local EMS would have been adequately decontaminated in the field, eight stated that they believed or felt decontamination would be adequate, and 12 were concerned that field decontamination might not be adequate. Eighteen hospitals (47%) reported treating one or more chemically contaminated patients in 1994. The authors believe the return rate reflects reluctance to commit hospital policies to paper. This was confirmed during telephone follow-up of nonrespondents when, for example, one safety officer discussed hazardous materials (hazmat) principles for 40 minutes, but refused to complete the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital hazmat preparedness in this area varies tremendously. A significant proportion of hospitals lack a written plan and equipment to allow the ED to safely and effectively handle the chemically contaminated patient. There is reluctance to discuss this topic.
INTRODUCTION: This study was conducted to examine the preparedness of emergency departments (EDs) to safely receive, decontaminate, and treat chemically contaminated patients. METHODS: The safety officers of all 58 acute-care hospitals in the five-county philadelphia metropolitan region were surveyed by mail, with a repeat mailing to nonresponders followed by telephone contact. The 16 survey questions addressed the ability of EDs to safely decontaminate and treat chemically contaminated patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 58 hospitals (66%) returned usable surveys. Of these, 24 (63%) have a written plan for decontamination and treatment of chemically contaminated patients in the ED, and 19 (50%) have a hospital-wide disaster plan that includes contingencies for decontamination and treatment of one or more chemically contaminated patients. Thirteen hospitals (34%) conducted a drill of either of these plans in 1994. Twenty (53%) EDs have a specific treatment area for chemically contaminated patients. A stock of supplies for protecting the ED from secondary contamination is maintained by 16 (42%). While 24 (63%) store personal protective equipment, most of these involve only gowns, gloves, and surgical masks; only 13 provide any type of respiratory protection. Nine respondents were certain that patients brought in by local EMS would have been adequately decontaminated in the field, eight stated that they believed or felt decontamination would be adequate, and 12 were concerned that field decontamination might not be adequate. Eighteen hospitals (47%) reported treating one or more chemically contaminated patients in 1994. The authors believe the return rate reflects reluctance to commit hospital policies to paper. This was confirmed during telephone follow-up of nonrespondents when, for example, one safety officer discussed hazardous materials (hazmat) principles for 40 minutes, but refused to complete the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital hazmat preparedness in this area varies tremendously. A significant proportion of hospitals lack a written plan and equipment to allow the ED to safely and effectively handle the chemically contaminated patient. There is reluctance to discuss this topic.
Authors: P C Strohm; T O Hammer; K Kopp; V Knobloch; K Alawadi; H Bannasch; W Köstler; E Zipfel; N P Südkamp Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.000