Keim Mark E, Pesik Nicki, Twum-Danso Nana A Y
Department of Emergency Medicine, Emory University of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003 Jul-Sep;18(3):193-9. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x00001059.
The [US] Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Act (the WMD Act of 1996) heralded a new wave of spending by the federal government on counter-terrorism efforts. Between 1996 and 2000, the United States of America (US) federal government allocated large sums of funding to the States for bioterrorism preparedness. Distribution of these funds between institutions involved in first-responder care (e.g., fire and safety departments) and hospitals was uneven. It is unknown whether these additional funds had an impact on the level of hospital preparedness for managing mass casualties involving hazardous materials at the local level, including potential terrorist attacks with chemical agents.
(1) To compare 1996 and 2000 measures of preparedness among hospitals of a major US metropolitan area for dealing with hazardous material casualties, including terrorism that involved the use of weapons of mass destruction; and (2) To provide guidance for the improvement of emergency preparedness and response in US hospitals.
In July 1996 and again in July 2000,21 hospitals in one major US city were surveyed by questionnaire. A survey was used to assess the amounts of antidote stocks held available for treatment of casualties caused by toxic chemical agents and institutional response capabilities including the number of showers for decontaminating patients, the level of worker protection, and the number of staff trained to decontaminate patients.
Hospital preparedness for treating and decontaminating patients exposed to toxic chemical agents was inadequate in 1996 and in 2000. From 1996 to 2000, there was no statistically significant change in the lack of hospital preparedness for stocking of nerve agent and cyanide antidotes. Capacity for decontamination of patients, which included appropriate hazardous material infrastructure and trained staff, generally was unimproved from 1996 to 2000 with the exception of an increase of nearly 30% in hospitals with at least one decontamination shower facility.
Hospitals surveyed in this study were poorly prepared to manage chemical emergency incidents, including terrorism. This lack of hospital preparedness did not change significantly between 1996 and 2000 despite increased funds allocated to bioterrorism preparedness at the local level.
[美国]《纳恩-卢格-多梅尼西大规模杀伤性武器防御法案》(1996年《大规模杀伤性武器法案》)开启了联邦政府在反恐工作上的新一轮支出。1996年至2000年期间,美利坚合众国(美国)联邦政府向各州拨出大量资金用于生物恐怖主义防范。这些资金在参与急救护理的机构(如消防和安全部门)与医院之间的分配并不均衡。尚不清楚这些额外资金是否对地方层面医院应对涉及危险材料的大规模伤亡事件(包括可能的化学制剂恐怖袭击)的准备水平产生了影响。
(1)比较美国一个主要大都市地区的医院在1996年和2000年应对危险材料伤亡事件(包括涉及使用大规模杀伤性武器的恐怖主义事件)的准备措施;(2)为改善美国医院的应急准备和应对工作提供指导。
1996年7月以及2000年7月,通过问卷调查对美国一个主要城市的21家医院进行了调查。该调查用于评估用于治疗有毒化学制剂所致伤亡的解毒剂储备量以及机构应对能力,包括用于为患者去污的淋浴喷头数量、工作人员的防护水平以及接受过为患者去污培训的工作人员数量。
1996年和2000年,医院在治疗和净化接触有毒化学制剂患者方面的准备工作都不足。从1996年到2000年,医院在储备神经毒剂和氰化物解毒剂方面准备不足的情况没有统计学上的显著变化。患者去污能力,包括适当的危险材料基础设施和经过培训的工作人员,从1996年到2000年总体上没有改善,只有至少有一个去污淋浴设施的医院增加了近30%除外。
本研究中接受调查的医院在应对化学紧急事件(包括恐怖主义事件)方面准备不足。尽管地方层面用于生物恐怖主义防范的资金有所增加,但1996年至2000年期间医院准备不足的情况并未显著改变。