Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:33:11.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disaster Response to the Release of Biohazardous Agents: Instrument Development and Evaluation of a Firefighter's Exercise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Matthias Lenz  and
Tanja Richter
Matthias Lenz*
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg, Unit of Health Sciences and Education, Hamburg, Germany
Tanja Richter
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg, Unit of Health Sciences and Education, Hamburg, Germany
*
MIN-Fakultät - GesundheitswissenschaftMartin-Luther-King-Platz 620146 Hamburg, Germany E-mail: matthias.lenz@uni-hamburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

The release of biohazardous agents could affect many people. Preparedness is crucial for adequate responses to accidental or deliberate release of biohazardous agents. It is believed that exercises based on simulated incident scenes are effective methods for the training of firefighters and biohazard response teams. Structured evaluations are important methods used to identify areas of ineffectiveness and to assure the quality of responses to releases of biohazards.

Methods:

A local fire department conducted a full-scale biohazard exercise in an elementary school. The firefighters practiced prohibiting entry to the area, establishing security zones, evacuating victims, assessing hazards, preventing further dissemination, and sampling and keeping the suspicious material in safe custody.Trained observers systematically evaluated the exercise following a standardized evaluation protocol. A set of data collection templates were created based on standard operating procedures extracted from current guidelines.

Results:

There were 60 firefighters, eight members of the incident command, 16 simulated victims, and 18 trained observers that participated in the exercise. Out of 31 standard operating procedures, 20 were in accordance with the guidelines, 10 were performed incorrectly, and one was not applicable. Major problems related to the assessment and handling of the suspicious material, the use of protective equipment, and decontamination of victims. Reasons for incomplete and/or conflicting documentation included insufficient knowledge and training of observers, imprecise instructions about documentation, and the size of observation zones.

Conclusions:

Intensive education and training of response activities is necessary. Each fire department should perpetually reassess their technical equipment and specific skills and their communication and command structures. The applied documentation system performed well in disclosing discrepancies between observed response activities and current recommendations. Using external observers provided transparent and independent data. However, intensive observer training is necessary. Observer training should include detailed, written instructions and short guidelines that could be available during the exercise.

Keywords

biohazardous materialcivil defensedisaster drillsevaluation toolsfire departmentGermanystandard operating procedure
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 197 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2009

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.Geier, W: New Strategies for Civil Protection in Germany. Bonn: Federal Administration Department, Academy for Crisis Management, Emergency Planning and Civil Defense (AKNZ), 2003.Google Scholar
2.Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe): Biological Hazard Handbook Civil Protection. Bonn: Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK), 2007.Google Scholar
3.Robert Koch Institute (RKI): Departments and Units, Centre for Biological Safety (Zentrum für Biologische Sicherheit). Available at http://www.rki.de/cln_049/nn_216782/EN/Content/Institute/DepartmentsUnits/CenterBioSafety/CenterBioSafety__node.html?__nnn=true. Accessed 11 August 2008.Google Scholar
4.RKI: Recommendations for suspected contamination with bio-hazardous agents. Available at http://www.rki.de/nn_203792/DE/Content/Infekt/Biosicherheit/Empfehlungen/empfehlungen__node.html?__nnn=true. Accessed 11 December 2007.Google Scholar
5.Fire Service Directive Board: Fire Service Directive 500 [German]. In: Series Berlin. Available at http://www.bbk.bund.de/cln_007/nn_398012/DE/06__Fachinformationsstelle/03__Dienstvorschriften/Dienstvorschriften__node.html__nnn=true. Accessed 11 December 2007.Google Scholar
6.Klein, KR, Brandenburg, DC, Atas, JG, Maher, A: The use of trained observers as an evaluation tool for a multi-hospital bioterrorism exercise. Prehospital Disast Med 2005;20(3):159–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Beaton, RD, Oberle, MW, Wicklund, J, Stevermer, A, Boase, J, Owens, D: Evaluation of the Washington State National Pharmaceutical Stockpile dispensing exercise: Part I—Patient volunteer findings. J Public Health Manag Pract 2003;9(5):368–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Fitzgerald, DJ, Sztajnkrycer, MD, Crocco, TJ: Chemical weapon functional exercise—Cincinnati: Observations and lessons learned from a “typical medium-sized” city's response to simulated terrorism utilizing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Public Health Rep 2003;118(3):205–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Jasper, E, Miller, M, Sweeney, B, Berg, D, Feuer, E, Reganato, D: Preparedness of hospitals to respond to a radiological terrorism event as assessed by a fullscale exercise. J Public Health Manag Pract 2005;(Suppl):11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Vinson, E: Managing bioterrorism mass casualties in an emergency department: Lessons learned from a rural community hospital disaster drill. Disaster Manag Response 2007;5(1):18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Schleipman, AR, Gerbaudo, VH, Castronovo, FP Jr, : Radiation disaster response: Preparation and simulation experience at an academic medical center. J Nucl Med Technol 2004;32(1):22–27.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Wang, C, Wei, S, Xiang, H, Xu, Y, Han, S, Mkangara, OB, Nie, S: Evaluating the effectiveness of an emergency preparedness training programme for public health staff in China. Public Health 2008;122(5):471–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Palafox, J, Pointer, JE, Martchenke, J, Kleinrock, M, Michaelis, J: The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: Issues in medical control. Prehospital Disast Med 1993;8(4):291–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed