Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:37:25.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear preparedness training for emergency medical services providers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Daniel Kollek ,
Michelle Welsford  and
Karen Wanger
Daniel Kollek*
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Michelle Welsford
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., Regional Paramedic Base Hospital Program, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ont.
Karen Wanger
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, and British Columbia Ambulance Service, Vancouver, BC
*
McMaster University, 4000 Creekside Dr., Unit 902, Dundas ON L9H 7S9; [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

We assessed the self-reported theoretical and practical preparedness training of Canadian emergency medical services (EMS) providers in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) events.

Methods:

We designed an online survey to address the theoretical and practical CBRN training level of prehospital providers. Emergency medical services staff in British Columbia and Ontario were invited to participate.

Results:

Of the 1028 respondents, 75% were male, and the largest demographic groups were front-line personnel with more than 15 years of experience. Only 63% of respondents indicated they had received either theoretical or practical training to work in a contaminated environment, leaving 37% who indicated they had received neither type of training. Of those that had received any training, 61% indicated they had received “hands-on” or practical training and 82% indicated they had received some training in identification of a possibly contaminated scene. Only 42% had received training for symptoms of nerve agents, 37% had received training for symptoms of blister agents and 46% had received training for symptoms of asphyxiants. Thirty-two percent had received training for the treatment of patients exposed to nerve agents, and 30% had received training for the treatment of patients exposed to blister agents. Only 31% of all respondents had received training for detecting radiation.

Conclusion:

CBRN events involve unique hazards and require specific education and training for EMS providers. A large proportion of Canadian EMS providers report not having received the training to identify and work in contaminated environments.

Keywords

CBRNEMSterrorismPPE disaster preparednessdisastersdisaster planningemergency medical services
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , July 2009 , pp. 337 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2009

References

REFERENCES

1. Brennan, RJ, Waeckerle, JF, Sharp, TW, et al. Chemical warfare agents: emergency medical and emergency public health issues. Ann EmergMed 1999;34:191–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Kollek, D. Canadian emergency department preparedness for a nuclear, biological or chemical event. CJEM 2003;5:18–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Krivoy, A, Layish, I, Rotman, E, et al. OP or not OP: the medical challenge at the chemical terrorism scene. Prehospital Disaster Med 2005;20:155–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Karayilanoglu, T, Kenar, L, Gulec, M. Evaluations over the medical emergency responding to chemical terrorist attack. Mil Med 2003;168:591–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Baker, D. Civilian exposure to toxic agents: emergency medical response. Prehospital Disaster Med 2004;19:174–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Krivoy, A, Rotman, E, Layish, I, et al. Medical management in the chemical terrorism scene [articlein Hebrew]. Harefuah 2005;144(4):266–71, 302.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Tokuda, Y, Kikuchi, M, Takahashi, O, et al. Prehospital management of sarin nerve gas terrorism in urban settings: 10 years of progress after the Tokyo subway sarin attack. Resuscitation 2006;68:193–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Keim, ME. Terrorism involving cyanide:the prospect of improving preparedness in the prehospital setting. Prehospital Disaster Med 2006;21(Suppl2):s56–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Kenar, L, Karayilanoglu, T. Prehospital management and medical interventionafter a chemical attack. Emerg Med J 2004;21:84–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. FitzGerald, DJ, Sztajnkrycer, MD, Crocco, TJ. Chemical weapon functional exercise—Cincinnati: observations and lessons learned from a “typical medium-sized” city’s response to simulated terrorism utilizingWeapons of Mass Destruction. Public Health Rep 2003;118:205–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Carli, P, Telion, C, Baker, D. Terrorism in France. Prehospital Disaster Med 2003;18:92–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Okumura, T, Ninomiya, N, Ohta, M. The chemical disaster response system in Japan. Prehospital Disaster Med 2003;18:189–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Beaton, RD, Johnson, LC. Instrument development and evaluation of domesticpreparedness training for first responders. Prehospital Disaster Med 2002;17:119–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Tucker, JB. National health and medical services response to incidents of chemical and biological terrorism. JAMA 1997;278:362–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Chaput, CJ, Deluhery, MR, Stake, CE, et al. Disaster training for prehospital providers. Prehosp Emerg Care 2007;11:458–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Reilly, MJ, Markenson, D, DiMaggio, C. Comfort level of emergency medical service providers in responding to weapons of mass destruction events: impact of training and equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med 2007;22:297–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Clawson, A, Menechemi, N, Kim, U, et al. Are we ready for terrorism? Emergency medical technicians’ and paramedics’ training and self-perceived competence since September 11. Am J Disaster Med 2007;1:26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar