TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of US Federal Guidelines (Primary Response Incident Scene Management [PRISM]) for Mass Decontamination of Casualties During the Initial Operational Response to a Chemical Incident
AU - Chilcott, Robert
AU - Larner, Joanne
AU - Durrant, Adam
AU - Hughes, Philip
AU - Mahalingam, Devanya
AU - Rivers, Samantha
AU - Thomas, Elliot
AU - Amer, Nevine
AU - Barrett, Mark
AU - Matar, Hazem
AU - Pinhal, Andreia
AU - Jackson, Toni
AU - McCarthy-Barnett, Kate
AU - Reppucci, Joseph
PY - 2019/6/1
Y1 - 2019/6/1
N2 - Study objective
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and operational effectiveness of US federal government guidance (Primary Response Incident Scene Management [PRISM]) for the initial response phase to chemical incidents.
Methods
The study was performed as a large-scale exercise (Operation DOWNPOUR). Volunteers were dosed with a chemical warfare agent simulant to quantify the efficacy of different iterations of dry, ladder pipe system, or technical decontamination.
Results
The most effective process was a triple combination of dry, ladder pipe system, and technical decontamination, which attained an average decontamination efficiency of approximately 100% on exposed hair and skin sites. Both wet decontamination processes (ladder pipe system and technical decontamination, alone or in combination with dry decontamination) were also effective (decontamination efficiency >96%). In compliant individuals, dry decontamination was effective (decontamination efficiency approximately 99%), but noncompliance (tentatively attributed to suboptimal communication) resulted in significantly reduced efficacy (decontamination efficiency approximately 70%). At-risk volunteers (because of chronic illness, disability, or language barrier) were 3 to 8 times slower than ambulatory casualties in undergoing dry and ladder pipe system decontamination, a consequence of which may be a reduction in the overall rate at which casualties can be processed.
Conclusion
The PRISM incident response protocols are fit for purpose for ambulatory casualties. However, a more effective communication strategy is required for first responders (particularly when guiding dry decontamination). There is a clear need to develop more appropriate decontamination procedures for at-risk casualties.
AB - Study objective
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and operational effectiveness of US federal government guidance (Primary Response Incident Scene Management [PRISM]) for the initial response phase to chemical incidents.
Methods
The study was performed as a large-scale exercise (Operation DOWNPOUR). Volunteers were dosed with a chemical warfare agent simulant to quantify the efficacy of different iterations of dry, ladder pipe system, or technical decontamination.
Results
The most effective process was a triple combination of dry, ladder pipe system, and technical decontamination, which attained an average decontamination efficiency of approximately 100% on exposed hair and skin sites. Both wet decontamination processes (ladder pipe system and technical decontamination, alone or in combination with dry decontamination) were also effective (decontamination efficiency >96%). In compliant individuals, dry decontamination was effective (decontamination efficiency approximately 99%), but noncompliance (tentatively attributed to suboptimal communication) resulted in significantly reduced efficacy (decontamination efficiency approximately 70%). At-risk volunteers (because of chronic illness, disability, or language barrier) were 3 to 8 times slower than ambulatory casualties in undergoing dry and ladder pipe system decontamination, a consequence of which may be a reduction in the overall rate at which casualties can be processed.
Conclusion
The PRISM incident response protocols are fit for purpose for ambulatory casualties. However, a more effective communication strategy is required for first responders (particularly when guiding dry decontamination). There is a clear need to develop more appropriate decontamination procedures for at-risk casualties.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052502032&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.06.042
DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.06.042
M3 - Article
SN - 0196-0644
VL - 73
SP - 671
EP - 684
JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine
JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine
IS - 6
ER -