Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:51:29.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing Emergency Medical Personnel Response to Patients with Suspected Infectious Disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Kelly R. Klein ,
Jenny G. Atas  and
Jerry Collins
Kelly R. Klein*
Affiliation:
Weapons of Mass Destruction/Disaster Medicine/EMS Fellow, Department of Emergency Medicine, Wayne State University/MichiganDepartment of Community Health, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Jenny G. Atas
Affiliation:
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Jerry Collins
Affiliation:
Director of Public Safety, Detroit Receiving Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA
*
WMD/Disaster Medicine/EMS Fellow, Wayne State University, 4160 John R, Suite 616, Detroit, MI 48201USA E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

In the United States (US), hospitals are required to have disaster plans and stage drills to test these plans in order to satisfy the Joint Accreditation Commission of Healthcare Organizations. The focus of this drill was to test if emergency response personnel, both prehospital and hospital, would identify a patient with a potentially communicable infectious disease, and activate their respective disaster plan.

Methods:

Twelve urban/suburban emergency departments (ED) received patients via car and ambulance. Patients were moulaged to imitate a smallpox infection. Observers with checklists recorded what happened. The drill's endpoints were: (1) predetermined end time; (2) identification of the patient and hospital “lock-down”; and (3) breach of drill protocol.

Results:

None of the ambulance personnel correctly identified their patients. Of the total 13 mock patients assessed in the ED, seven (54%) were identified by the ED staff as possibly being infected with a highly contagious agent and, in turn, the hospital's bio-agent protocol was initiated. Of the correctly identified patients, five (71%) were placed in isolation, and the remaining two (29%), although not isolated, were identified prior to their ED discharge and the appropriate protocol was activated. The six remaining mock patients (46%) were incorrectly diagnosed and discharged. Of the hospitals that had correctly identified their “infected” patients, only two (29%) followed their notification protocol and contacted the local health department.

Conclusion:

This drill was successful in identifying this area's shortcomings, highlighted positive reactions, and raised some interesting questions about the ability to detect a patient with a possibly highly contagious disease.

Keywords

bioterrorismdisaster plandrillinfectious diseasemoulageprehospital drillsmallpox
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 256 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2004

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.Auf der Heide, E: Principles of hospital disaster planning. In: Hogan, DE, Burstein, JL (eds): Disaster Medicine. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2002, pp 57–89.Google Scholar
2.Auf der Heide, E: Disaster Response: Principles of Preparation and Coordination. St. Louis, Missouri: CV Mosby 1989.Google Scholar
3.Auf der Heide, E: Designing a disaster plan: Important questions. Plant Technology & Safety Management 1984;3:7–18.Google Scholar
4.Auf der Heide, E: Disaster planning: Part II. Disaster problems, issues, and challenges identified in the research literature. In: Morres, CA, Burkle, FM, Lillibridge, S (eds), Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: WB Saunders; 1996, pp 453–480.Google Scholar
5.Quarantelli, EL: Delivery of Emergency Medical Care in Disasters: Assumptions and Realities. New York, New York: Irvington Publishers, 1983.Google Scholar
6.Dynes, RR, Quarantelli, EL, Kreps, GA: A Perspective on Disaster Planning. 3rd ed. Report series 11, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, Newark, 1981.Google Scholar
7.Dynes, RD: Community emergency planning: False assumptions and inappropriate analogies. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 1994;12:141–158.Google Scholar
8.Kendra, J, Wachtendorf, T: Elements of Community Resilience in the World Trade Center attack. Disaster Research Center, the University of Delaware; 2003.Google Scholar
9.Davis, ML, Blanchard, JC: Are Local Health Responders Ready for Biological and Chemical Terrorism? Issue Paper, RAND, 2002.Google Scholar
10.McKevitt, C, Morgan, M, Dundas, R, Holland, WW: Sickness absence and working through illness: A comparison of two professions. J Public Health Med 1997;19:295–300.Google Scholar
11.Rosvold, EO, Bjerters E: Doctors who do not take sick leave: Hazardous heroes. Scan J Pub Health 2001;29;71–75.Google Scholar
12.Perkins, MR, Higton, A, Witchomb, M: Do junior doctors take sick leave? Occup Environ Med 2003;60:699–700.Google Scholar