• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

对市中心一家急诊科的医护人员进行化学、生物、放射、核及爆炸物应急准备情况评估。

An assessment of Chemical, Biological, Radiologic, Nuclear, and Explosive preparedness among emergency department healthcare providers in an inner city emergency department.

作者信息

Kotora Joseph G

机构信息

Primary Investigator, Fellow, EMS and Disaster Medicine, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, Newark, New Jersey.

出版信息

J Emerg Manag. 2015 Sep-Oct;13(5):431-46. doi: 10.5055/jem.2015.0253.

DOI:10.5055/jem.2015.0253
PMID:26537699
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Emergency healthcare providers are required to care for victims of Chemical, Biological, Radiologic, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) agents. However, US emergency departments are often ill prepared to manage CBRNE casualties. Most providers lack adequate knowledge or experience in the areas of patient decontamination, hospital-specific disaster protocols, interagency familiarization, and available supply of necessary medical equipment and medications. This study evaluated the CBRNE preparedness of physicians, nurses, and midlevel providers in an urban tertiary care emergency department.

METHODS

This retrospective observational survey study used a previously constructed questionnaire instrument. A total of 205 e-mail invitations were sent to 191 eligible providers through an online survey distribution tool (Survey Monkey®). Respondents were enrolled from February 1, 2014 to March 15, 2014. Simple frequencies of correct answers were used to determine the level of preparedness of each group. Cronbach's coefficient α was used to validate the precision of the study instrument. Finally, validity coefficients and analysis of variance ANOVA were used to determine the strength of correlation between demographic variables, as well as the variation between individual responses.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine providers responded to the questionnaire (31.14 percent response rate). The overall frequency of correct answers was 66.26 percent, indicating a relatively poor level of CBRNE preparedness. The study instrument lacked precision and reliability (coefficient α 0.4050). Significant correlations were found between the frequency of correct answers and the respondents' gender, practice experience, and previous experience with a CBRNE incident. Significant variance exists between how providers believe casualties should be decontaminated, which drugs should be administered, and the interpretation of facility-specific protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency care providers are inadequately prepared to manage CBRNE incidents. Furthermore, a valid and precise instrument capable of measuring preparedness needs to be developed. Standardized educational curriculums that consider healthcare providers' genders, occupations, and experience levels may assist in closing the knowledge gaps between providers and reinforce emergency departments' CBRNE preparedness.

摘要

引言

紧急医疗服务人员需要照料化学、生物、放射、核和爆炸物(CBRNE)制剂的受害者。然而,美国急诊科往往没有做好应对CBRNE伤亡事件的准备。大多数服务人员在患者去污、医院特定灾难预案、跨部门协作以及必要医疗设备和药品的可用供应等方面缺乏足够的知识或经验。本研究评估了一家城市三级护理急诊科的医生、护士和中级医疗服务人员的CBRNE应急准备情况。

方法

这项回顾性观察性调查研究使用了先前构建的问卷工具。通过在线调查分发工具(Survey Monkey®)向191名符合条件的服务人员发送了总共205份电子邮件邀请。调查对象于2014年2月1日至2014年3月15日入选。使用正确答案的简单频率来确定每组的应急准备水平。使用克朗巴赫系数α来验证研究工具的精确性。最后,使用效度系数和方差分析(ANOVA)来确定人口统计学变量之间的相关强度以及个体反应之间的差异。

结果

59名服务人员回复了问卷(回复率为31.14%)。正确答案的总体频率为66.26%,表明CBRNE应急准备水平相对较差。研究工具缺乏精确性和可靠性(系数α为0.4050)。在正确答案的频率与受访者的性别、实践经验以及先前处理CBRNE事件的经验之间发现了显著相关性。在服务人员认为应如何对伤亡人员进行去污、应使用哪些药物以及对特定机构预案的解释方面存在显著差异。

结论

紧急护理服务人员在应对CBRNE事件方面准备不足。此外,需要开发一种能够有效测量应急准备情况的精确工具。考虑到医疗服务人员的性别、职业和经验水平的标准化教育课程可能有助于缩小服务人员之间的知识差距,并加强急诊科的CBRNE应急准备。

相似文献

1
An assessment of Chemical, Biological, Radiologic, Nuclear, and Explosive preparedness among emergency department healthcare providers in an inner city emergency department.对市中心一家急诊科的医护人员进行化学、生物、放射、核及爆炸物应急准备情况评估。
J Emerg Manag. 2015 Sep-Oct;13(5):431-46. doi: 10.5055/jem.2015.0253.
2
An assessment of Chemical, Biological, Radiologic, Nuclear, and Explosive preparedness among emergency department healthcare providers in an inner city emergency department.对市中心一家急诊科的医护人员进行化学、生物、放射、核及爆炸物应急准备情况的评估。
Am J Disaster Med. 2015 Autumn;10(3):189-204. doi: 10.5055/ajdm.2015.0202.
3
Are emergency care nurses prepared for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive incidents?急诊护理人员是否为应对化学、生物、放射性、核或爆炸事件做好了准备?
Int Emerg Nurs. 2012 Jul;20(3):151-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2011.10.001. Epub 2011 Nov 9.
4
Y2K medical disaster preparedness in New York City: confidence of emergency department directors in their ability to respond.纽约市应对千年虫医疗灾难的准备工作:急诊科主任对自身应对能力的信心。
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2001 Apr-Jun;16(2):88-94; discussion 94-5. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x00025759.
5
Emergency Department Response to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Events: A Systematic Review.急诊科对化学、生物、放射、核及爆炸事件的应对:一项系统综述
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018 Oct;33(5):543-549. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X18000900.
6
Evaluation of Hospitals' Disaster Preparedness Plans in the Holy City of Makkah (Mecca): A Cross-Sectional Observation Study.麦加圣城医院灾难应急预案评估:一项横断面观察研究
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Feb;32(1):33-45. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X16001229. Epub 2016 Dec 14.
7
Hospital preparedness for weapons of mass destruction incidents: an initial assessment.医院对大规模杀伤性武器事件的应对准备:初步评估。
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Nov;38(5):562-5. doi: 10.1067/mem.2001.118009.
8
Terror Australis 2004: preparedness of Australian hospitals for disasters and incidents involving chemical, biological and radiological agents.《2004年澳大利亚的恐怖事件:澳大利亚医院对涉及化学、生物和放射制剂的灾害及事故的应对准备》
Crit Care Resusc. 2008 Jun;10(2):125-36.
9
Emergency Preparedness Training for Hospital Nursing Staff, New York City, 2012-2016.2012-2016 年纽约市医院护理人员应急准备培训。
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019 Jan;51(1):81-87. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12425. Epub 2018 Sep 17.
10
Are Dutch Hospitals Prepared for Chemical, Biological, or Radionuclear Incidents? A Survey Study.荷兰医院对化学、生物或放射性核事件做好准备了吗?一项调查研究。
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Oct;32(5):483-491. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X17006513. Epub 2017 May 8.

引用本文的文献

1
Awareness and preparedness level of medical workers for radiation and nuclear emergency response.医务人员对辐射和核应急响应的认识和准备水平。
Front Public Health. 2024 Jun 17;12:1410722. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1410722. eCollection 2024.
2
Assessment of the effectiveness of a course in major chemical incidents for front line health care providers: a pilot study from Saudi Arabia.重大化学事故一线医护人员课程效果评估:来自沙特阿拉伯的试点研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2022 May 9;22(1):350. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03427-2.
3
Assessment of disaster preparedness among emergency departments in Italian hospitals: a cautious warning for disaster risk reduction and management capacity.
意大利医院急诊科的灾难准备情况评估:对降低灾害风险和管理能力的谨慎警示
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Aug 15;24(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s13049-016-0292-6.
4
The Role of Bias by Emergency Department Providers in Care for American Indian Children.急诊科医护人员的偏见在美国印第安儿童护理中的作用。
Med Care. 2016 Jun;54(6):562-9. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000533.