The purpose of this article is to set the context for this special issue of Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness on the allocation of scarce resources in an improvised nuclear device incident. A nuclear detonation occurs when a sufficient amount of fissile material is brought suddenly together to reach critical mass and cause an explosion. Although the chance of a nuclear detonation is thought to be small, the consequences are potentially catastrophic, so planning for an effective medical response is necessary, albeit complex. A substantial nuclear detonation will result in physical effects and a great number of casualties that will require an organized medical response to save lives. With this type of incident, the demand for resources to treat casualties will far exceed what is available. To meet the goal of providing medical care (including symptomatic/palliative care) with fairness as the underlying ethical principle, planning for allocation of scarce resources among all involved sectors needs to be integrated and practiced. With thoughtful and realistic planning, the medical response in the chaotic environment may be made more effective and efficient for both victims and medical responders.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S20-S31)

A 10-kiloton (kT) nuclear detonation within a US city could expose hundreds of thousands of people to radiation. The Scarce Resources for a Nuclear Detonation Project was undertaken to guide community planning and response in the aftermath of a nuclear detonation, when demand will greatly exceed available resources. This article reviews the pertinent literature on radiation injuries from human exposures and animal models to provide a foundation for the triage and management approaches outlined in this special issue. Whole-body doses >2 Gy can produce clinically significant acute radiation syndrome (ARS), which classically involves the hematologic, gastrointestinal, cutaneous, and cardiovascular/central nervous systems. The severity and presentation of ARS are affected by several factors, including radiation dose and dose rate, interindividual variability in radiation response, type of radiation (eg, gamma alone, gamma plus neutrons), partial-body shielding, and possibly age, sex, and certain preexisting medical conditions. The combination of radiation with trauma, burns, or both (ie, combined injury) confers a worse prognosis than the same dose of radiation alone. Supportive care measures, including fluid support, antibiotics, and possibly myeloid cytokines (eg, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor), can improve the prognosis for some irradiated casualties. Finally, expert guidance and surge capacity for casualties with ARS are available from the Radiation Emergency Medical Management Web site and the Radiation Injury Treatment Network.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S32-S44)

This article provides practical ethical guidance for clinicians making decisions after a nuclear detonation, in advance of the full establishment of a coordinated response. We argue that the utilitarian maxim of the greatest good for the greatest number, interpreted only as “the most lives saved,” needs refinement. We take the philosophical position that utilitarian efficiency should be tempered by the principle of fairness in making decisions about providing lifesaving interventions and palliation. The most practical way to achieve these goals is to mirror the ethical precepts of routine clinical practice, in which 3 factors govern resource allocation: order of presentation, patient's medical need, and effectiveness of an intervention. Although these basic ethical standards do not change, priority is given in a crisis to those at highest need in whom interventions are expected to be effective. If available resources will not be effective in meeting the need, then it is unfair to expend them and they should be allocated to another patient with high need and greater expectation for survival if treated. As shortage becomes critical, thresholds for intervention become more stringent. Although the focus of providers will be on the victims of the event, the needs of patients already receiving care before the detonation also must be considered. Those not allocated intervention must still be provided as much appropriate comfort, assistance, relief of symptoms, and explanations as possible, given the available resources. Reassessment of patients' clinical status and priority for intervention also should be conducted with regularity.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S46-S53)

A nuclear detonation in a US city would have profound psychological, social, and behavioral effects. This article reviews the scientific literature on human responses to radiation incidents and disasters in general, and examines potential behavioral health care provider (BHCP) contributions in the hours and days after a nuclear detonation. In the area directly affected by the blast, the immediate overarching goal of BHCP interventions is the support of lifesaving activities and the prevention of additional casualties from fallout. These interventions include 6 broad categories: promoting appropriate protective actions, discouraging dangerous behaviors, managing patient/survivor flow to facilitate the best use of scarce resources, supporting first responders, assisting with triage, and delivering palliative care when appropriate. At more distant sites, BHCP should work with medical providers to support hospitalized survivors of the detonation. Recommendations are also made on BHCP interventions later in the response phase and during recovery.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S54-S64)

This article summarizes public health legal issues that need to be considered in preparing for and responding to nuclear detonation. Laws at the federal, state, territorial, local, tribal, and community levels can have a significant impact on the response to an emergency involving a nuclear detonation and the allocation of scarce resources for affected populations. An understanding of the breadth of these laws, the application of federal, state, and local law, and how each may change in an emergency, is critical to an effective response. Laws can vary from 1 geographic area to the next and may vary in an emergency, affording waivers or other extraordinary actions under federal, state, or local emergency powers. Public health legal requirements that are commonly of concern and should be examined for flexibility, reciprocity, and emergency exceptions include liability protections for providers; licensing and credentialing of providers; consent and privacy protections for patients; occupational safety and employment protections for providers; procedures for obtaining and distributing medical countermeasures and supplies; property use, condemnation, and protection; restrictions on movement of individuals in an emergency area; law enforcement; and reimbursement for care.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S65-S72)

The hallmark of a successful response to a nuclear detonation will be the resilience of the community, region, and nation. An incident of this magnitude will rapidly become a national incident; however, the initial critical steps to reduce lives lost, save the lives that can be saved with the resources available, and understand and apply resources available to a complex and dynamic situation will be the responsibility of the local and regional responders and planners. Expectations of the public health and health care systems will be met to the extent possible by coordination, cooperation, and an effort to produce as consistent a response as possible for the victims. Responders will face extraordinarily stressful situations, and their own physical and psychological health is of great importance to optimizing the response. This article illustrates through vignettes and supporting text how the incident may unfold for the various components of the health and medical systems and provides additional context for the discipline-related actions outlined in the state and local planners’ playbook.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S73-S88)

For efficient and effective medical responses to mass casualty events, detailed advanced planning is required. For federal responders, this is an ongoing responsibility. The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) prepares playbooks with formal, written plans that are reviewed, updated, and exercised regularly. Recognizing that state and local responders with fewer resources may be helped in creating their own event-specific response plans, subject matter experts from the range of sectors comprising the Scarce Resources for a Nuclear Detonation Project, provided for this first time a state and local planner's playbook template for responding to a nuclear detonation. The playbook elements are adapted from DHHS playbooks with appropriate modification for state and local planners. Individualization by venue is expected, reflecting specific assets, populations, geography, preferences, and expertise. This playbook template is designed to be a practical tool with sufficient background information and options for step-by-step individualized planning and response.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S89-S97)

Conventional triage algorithms assume unlimited medical resource availability. After a nuclear detonation, medical resources are likely to be particularly limited, suggesting that conventional triage algorithms need to be rethought. To test various hypotheses related to the prioritization of victims in this setting, we developed the model of resource- and time-based triage (MORTT). This model uses information on time to death, probability of survival if treated and if untreated, and time to treat various types of traumatic injuries in an agent-based model in which the time of medical practitioners or materials can be limited. In this embodiment, MORTT focuses solely on triage for surgical procedures in the first 48 hours after a nuclear detonation. MORTT determines the impact on survival based on user-selected prioritization of victims by severity or type of injury. Using MORTT, we found that in poorly resourced settings, prioritizing victims with moderate life-threatening injuries over victims with severe life-threatening injuries saves more lives and reduces demand for intensive care, which is likely to outstrip local and national capacity. Furthermore, more lives would be saved if victims with combined injury (ie, trauma plus radiation >2 Gy) are prioritized after nonirradiated victims with similar trauma.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S98-S110)

Based on background information in this special issue of the journal, possible triage recommendations for the first 4 days following a nuclear detonation, when response resources will be limited, are provided. The series includes: modeling for physical infrastructure damage; severity and number of injuries; expected outcome of triage to immediate, delayed, or expectant management; resources required for treating injuries of varying severity; and how resource scarcity (particularly medical personnel) worsens outcome. Four key underlying considerations are: 1.) resource adequacy will vary greatly across the response areas by time and location; 2.) to achieve fairness in resource allocation, a common triage approach is important; 3.) at some times and locations, it will be necessary to change from “conventional” to “contingency” or “crisis” standards of medical care (with a resulting change in triage approach from treating the “sickest first” to treating those “most likely to survive” first); and 4.) clinical reassessment and repeat triage are critical, as resource scarcity worsens or improves. Changing triage order and conserving and allocating resources for both lifesaving and palliative care can maintain fairness, support symptomatic care, and save more lives. Included in this article are printable triage cards that reflect our recommendations. These are not formal guidelines. With new research, data, and discussion, these recommendations will undoubtedly evolve.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S111-S121)

For 63 years scientists in the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission and its successor, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, have been assessing the long-term health effects in the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and in their children. The identification and follow-up of a large population (approximately a total of 200 000, of whom more than 40% are alive today) that includes a broad range of ages and radiation exposure doses, and healthy representatives of both sexes; establishment of well-defined cohorts whose members have been studied longitudinally, including some with biennial health examinations and a high survivor-participation rate; and careful reconstructions of individual radiation doses have resulted in reliable excess relative risk estimates for radiation-related health effects, including cancer and noncancer effects in humans, for the benefit of the survivors and for all humankind. This article reviews those risk estimates and summarizes what has been learned from this historic and unique study.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S122-S133)

Background: Prior assessments of public health readiness had identified gaps in radiation preparedness. In recent years, preparedness planning has involved an “all-hazards” approach. Current assessment of the national status related to radiation public health emergency preparedness capabilities at the state and local health department levels was needed.

Methods: A survey of state health departments related to radiation readiness was undertaken in 2010 by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE). States with nuclear power plants were instructed to consider their responses exclusive of capabilities and resources related to the plants given that the emergency response plans for nuclear power plants are specific and unique.

Results: Thirty-eight (76%) state health departments responded to the survey, including 26 of the 31 states with nuclear power plants. Specific strengths noted at the state level included that the majority of states had a written radiation response plan and most plans include a detailed section for communications issues during a radiation emergency. In addition, more than half of the states indicated that their relationship with federal partners is sufficient to provide resources for radiation emergencies, indicating the importance states placed on federal resources and expertise. Specific weaknesses are discussed and include that most states had completed little to no planning for public health surveillance to assess potential human health impacts of a radiation event; less than half had written plans to address exposure assessment, environmental sampling, human specimen collection and analysis, and human health assessment. Few reported having sufficient resources to do public health surveillance, radiation exposure assessment, laboratory functions and other capabilities.

Discussion: Levels of planning, resources and partnerships varied among states, those with nuclear power plants were better prepared. Gaps were evident in all states; however and additional training and resources are needed to ensure adequate levels of preparedness.

Conclusion: Overall results of this assessment indicate that in most measures of public health capacity and capability, states are poorly prepared to adequately respond to a major radiation emergency event. Specific recommendations are noted in the discussion.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S134-S142)

Background: The objective of the study was to model urban evacuation into surrounding communities after the detonation of an improvised nuclear device (IND) to assist rural and suburban planners in understanding and effectively planning to address the effects of population surges.

Methods: Researchers developed parameters for how far evacuees would travel to escape disasters and factors that would influence choice of destination from studies of historical evacuations, surveys of citizens' evacuation intentions in hypothetical disasters, and semistructured interviews with key informants and emergency preparedness experts. Those parameters became the inputs to a “push-pull” model of how many people would flee in the 4 scenarios and where they would go.

Results: The expanded model predicted significant population movements from the New York City borough of Manhattan and counties within 20 km of Manhattan to counties within a 150-mi radius of the assumed IND detonation. It also predicted that even in some communities located far from Manhattan, arriving evacuees would increase the population needing services by 50% to 150%.

Conclusions: The results suggest that suburban and rural communities could be overwhelmed by evacuees from their center city following an IND detonation. They also highlight the urgency of educating and communicating with the public about radiation hazards to mitigate panic and hysteria, anticipating the ways in which a mass exodus may disrupt or even cripple rescue and response efforts, and devising creative ways to exercise and drill for an event about which there is great denial and fatalism.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S143-S150)

Radiological terrorism has been recognized as a probable scenario with high impact. Radiological preparedness planning at the federal and state levels has been encouraging, but translating complex doctrines into operational readiness at the local level has proved challenging. Based on the authors' experience with radiological response planning for the City of Baltimore, this article describes an integrated approach to municipal-level radiological emergency preparedness planning, provides information on resources that are useful for radiological preparedness planning, and recommends a step-by-step process toward developing the plan with relevant examples from the experience in Baltimore. Local governmental agencies constitute the first line of response and are critical to the success of the operation. This article is intended as a starting framework for local governmental efforts toward developing a response plan for radiological incidents in their communities.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S151-S158)