Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:00:19.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence-Based Patient Decontamination: An Integral Component of Mass Exposure Chemical Incident Planning and Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Adam D. Leary ,
Michael D. Schwartz ,
Mark A. Kirk ,
Joselito S. Ignacio ,
Elaine B. Wencil  and
Susan M. Cibulsky
Adam D. Leary
Affiliation:
Medical Countermeasure Strategy and Requirements Division, Office of Policy and Planning, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Washington, DC
Michael D. Schwartz
Affiliation:
National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Washington, DC
Mark A. Kirk
Affiliation:
US Department of Health and Human Services, Chemical Defense Program, Office of Health Affairs, US Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC
Joselito S. Ignacio
Affiliation:
US Department of Health and Human Services, Chemical Defense Program, Office of Health Affairs, US Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC
Elaine B. Wencil
Affiliation:
Medical Countermeasure Strategy and Requirements Division, Office of Policy and Planning, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Washington, DC
Susan M. Cibulsky*
Affiliation:
Medical Countermeasure Strategy and Requirements Division, Office of Policy and Planning, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Washington, DC
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Susan M. Cibulsky, PhD, JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury St, Ste 2126, Boston, MA 02203 e-mail [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Decontaminating patients who have been exposed to hazardous chemicals can directly benefit the patients’ health by saving lives and reducing the severity of toxicity. While the importance of decontaminating patients to prevent the spread of contamination has long been recognized, its role in improving patient health outcomes has not been as widely appreciated. Acute chemical toxicity may manifest rapidly—often minutes to hours after exposure. Patient decontamination and emergency medical treatment must be initiated as early as possible to terminate further exposure and treat the effects of the dose already absorbed. In a mass exposure chemical incident, responders and receivers are faced with the challenges of determining the type of care that each patient needs (including medical treatment, decontamination, and behavioral health support), providing that care within the effective window of time, and protecting themselves from harm. The US Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Homeland Security have led the development of national planning guidance for mass patient decontamination in a chemical incident to help local communities meet these multiple, time-sensitive health demands. This report summarizes the science on which the guidance is based and the principles that form the core of the updated approach. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;0:1–7)

Keywords

decontaminationchemical hazard releasechemical warfareemergency preparednesshazardous substances
Type
Concepts in Disaster Medicine
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 260 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Shea, DA. RMP Facilities in the United States as of November 2012. Congressional Research Service memorandum. DocumentCloud. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/557127-crs-rmp-update-11-16-12.html. Accessed February 7, 2014.Google Scholar
2. National Toxic Substance Incidents Program: national estimated data. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry website. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ntsip/. Accessed September 5, 2013.Google Scholar
3.Broughton, E. The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review. Environ Health. 2005;4:1-6.Google Scholar
4.Wenck, MA, Van Sickle, D, Drociuk, D, etal. Rapid assessment of exposure to chlorine released from a train derailment and resulting health impact. Public Health Rep. 2007;122:784-792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Yanagisawa, N, Morita, H, Nakajima, T. Sarin experiences in Japan: acute toxicity and long-term effects. J Neurol Sci. 2006;249:76-85.Google Scholar
6.Wax, PM. Historical principles and perspectives. In: Nelson LS, Lewin NA, Howland MA, Hoffman RS, Goldfrank LR, Flomenbaum NE, eds. Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies, 9th ed. New York, New York: McGraw Medical; 2011:1-17.Google Scholar
7.Eaton, DL, Gilbert, SG. Principles of toxicology. In: Klaassen CD, ed. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, 7th ed. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008:11-43.Google Scholar
8.Reifenrath, WG, Mershon, MM, Brinkley, FB, Miura, GA, Broomfield, CA, Cranford, HB. Evaluation of diethyl malonate as a simulant for 1,2,2-trimethylpropyl methylphosphonofluoridate (soman) in shower decontamination of the skin. J Pharm Sci. 1984;73:1388-1392.Google Scholar
9.Bromberg, BE, Song, IC, Walden, RH. Hydrotherapy of chemical burns. Plast Reconstruct Surg. 1965;35:85-95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Braue, EH Jr, Smith, KH, Doxzon, BF, Lumpkin, HL, Clarkson, ED. Efficacy studies of Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion, M291 Skin Decontamination Kit, 0.5% bleach, 1% soapy water, and Skin Exposure Reduction Paste against chemical warfare agents, part 1: guinea pigs challenged with VX. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2011;30:15-28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Braue, EH Jr, Smith, KH, Doxzon, BF, Lumpkin, HL, Clarkson, ED. Efficacy studies of Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion, M291 Skin Decontamination Kit, 0.5% bleach, 1% soapy water, and Skin Exposure Reduction Paste against chemical warfare agents, part 2: guinea pigs challenged with soman. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2011;30:29-37.Google Scholar
12.Bjarnason, S, Mikler, J, Hill, I, etal. Comparison of selected skin decontaminant products and regimens against VX in domestic swine. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2008;27:253-261.Google Scholar
13.Hamilton, MG, Hill, I, Conley, J, Sawyer, TW, Caneva, DC, Lundy, PM. Clinical aspects of percutaneous poisoning by the chemical warfare agent VX: effects of application site and decontamination. Mil Med. 2004;169:856-862.Google Scholar
14.Taysse, L, Daulon, S, Delamanche, S, Bellier, B, Breton, P. Skin decontamination of mustards and organophosphates: comparative efficiency of RSDL and Fuller's earth in domestic swine. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2007;26:135-141.Google Scholar
15.Monteiro-Riviere, NA, Inman, AO, Jackson, H, Dunn, B, Dimond, S. Efficacy of topical phenol decontamination strategies on severity of acute phenol chemical burns and dermal absorption: in vitro and in vivo studies in pig skin. Toxicol Ind Health. 2001;17:95-104.Google Scholar
16.Leonard, LG, Scheulen, JJ, Munster, AM. Chemical burns: effect of prompt first aid. J Trauma. 1982;22:420-423.Google Scholar
17.Moran, KD, O'Reilly, T, Munster, AM. Chemical burns: a ten-year experience. Am Surg. 1987;53:652-653.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Sykes, RA, Mani, MM, Hiebert, JM. Chemical burns: retrospective review. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1986;7:343-347.Google Scholar
19.Preston, RJ, Marcozzi, D, Lima, R, Pietrobon, R, Braga, L, Jacobs, D. The effect of evacuation on the number of victims following hazardous chemical release. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008;12:18-23.Google Scholar
20.Amlot, R, Larner, J, Matar, H, etal. Comparative analysis of showering protocols for mass-casualty decontamination. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25:435-439.Google Scholar
21.Hood, J, Fernandes-Flack, J, Larranaga, MD. Effectiveness of hospital-based decontamination during a simulated mass casualty exposure. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2011;8:D131-D138.Google Scholar
22.Moffett, PM, Baker, BL, Kang, CS, Johnson, MS. Evaluation of time required for water-only decontamination of an oil-based agent. Mil Med. 2010;175:185-187.Google Scholar
23.Torngren, S, Persson, S-A, Ljungquist, A, etal. Personal decontamination after exposure to simulated liquid phase contaminants: functional assessment of a new unit. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1998;36:567-573.Google Scholar
24.2012 Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) Strategy. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response website. http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/mcm/phemce/Documents/2012-PHEMCE-Strategy.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2014.Google Scholar
25.Auf der Heide, E. The importance of evidence-based disaster planning. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47:34-49.Google Scholar
26.Kirk, MA, Deaton, ML. Bringing order out of chaos: effective strategies for medical response to mass chemical exposure. EmergMed Clin North Am. 2007;25:527-548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Scanlon, J. Chemically contaminated casualties: different problems and possible solutions. Am J DisasterMed. 2010;5:95-105.Google Scholar
28.Okumura, T, Hisaoka, T, Yamada, A. The Tokyo subway sarin attack – lessons learned. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005;207:S471-S476.Google Scholar
29.Egan, JR, Amlot, R. Modelling mass casualty decontamination systems informed by field exercise data. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2012;9:3685-3710.Google Scholar
30.Risher, JF, DeRosa, CT. The precision, uses, and limitations of public health guidance values. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 1997;3:681-700.Google Scholar
31.Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs). US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration website. https://www.osha.gov/dsg/topics/pel/index.html#solutions. Accessed January 17, 2014.Google Scholar
32.Moody, RP, Maibach, HI. Skin decontamination: importance of the wash-in effect. Food Chem Toxicol. 2006;44:1783-1788.Google Scholar
33.Hick, JL, Penn, P, Hanfling, D, Lappe, MA, O'Laughlin, D, Burstein, JL. Establishing and training health care facility decontamination teams. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;42:381-390.Google Scholar
34.Laurent, JF, Richter, F, Michel, A. Management of victims of urban chemical attack: the French approach. Resuscitation. 1999;42:141-149.Google Scholar
35.Byers, M, Russell, M, Lockey, DJ. Clinical care in the “hot zone”. Emerg Med J. 2008;25:108-112.Google Scholar