Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:20:39.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of a Decision Framework for Establishing a Health Register Following a Major Incident

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2012

Karthikeyan Paranthaman ,
Mike Catchpole ,
John Simpson ,
Jill Morris ,
Colin R. Muirhead  and
Giovanni S. Leonardi
Karthikeyan Paranthaman*
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, United Kingdom. Dr. Paranthaman's current affiliation is Health Protection Agency, Health Protection Services (Local), Leicester, England. Dr. Muirhead's current affiliation is Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Mike Catchpole
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, Health Protection Services Colindale, London, United Kingdom
John Simpson
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Porton Down, United Kingdom
Jill Morris
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, Health Protection Services (Local), Chilton, United Kingdom
Colin R. Muirhead
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, United Kingdom. Dr. Paranthaman's current affiliation is Health Protection Agency, Health Protection Services (Local), Leicester, England. Dr. Muirhead's current affiliation is Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Giovanni S. Leonardi
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, United Kingdom. Dr. Paranthaman's current affiliation is Health Protection Agency, Health Protection Services (Local), Leicester, England. Dr. Muirhead's current affiliation is Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
*
Correspondence: Karthikeyan Paranthaman, MBBS, MSc, FFPH, DipHEP Health Protection Agency County Hall Glenfield, Leicestershire, United Kingdom, LE3 8TB E-mail karthik.paranthaman@hpa.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Health registers have been established in the United Kingdom (UK) and elsewhere following mass exposure to novel agents or known agents, but there is no consensus on the criteria for establishing such registers.

Objective

This study aimed to develop a decision framework to assess the need for establishing a health register for major chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) incidents.

Methods

The study comprised three stages. In the first stage, the study team prepared a list of potential criteria that may be used to assess the need for setting up a health register based on literature review and personal experiences in previous incidents. In the second stage, the potential criteria were evaluated in two Delphi rounds involving experts and key decision makers from the UK Health Protection Agency (HPA) and academic organizations. In the final stage, the criteria were converted into a decision framework, and its utility was tested using four fictional scenarios.

Results

A total of 11 statements were proposed by the study group. These criteria were revised following feedback from 16 experts in the first Delphi round. All 11 statements achieved consensus at the end of the second Delphi round. Pilot testing of the agreed criteria on four fictional scenarios confirmed validity and reliability for use in the decision process.

Conclusions

A decision framework to assess the need for setting up a health register after a major incident was agreed upon and tested using fictional scenarios. Further areas of work for practical implementation of the criteria and related planning for systems and protocols have been identified.

ParanthamanK, CatchpoleM, SimpsonJ, MorrisJ, MuirheadCR, LeonardiGS. Development of a Decision Framework for Establishing a Health Register Following a Major Incident. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012;27(6):1-7.

Keywords

emergency planningexposurehealth registermajor incidentrisk
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 27 , Issue 6 , December 2012 , pp. 524 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2012

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.Falkenrath, R. Confronting nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism. Survival. 1998;40(3):43-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Yanagisawa, N, Morita, H, Nakajima, T. Sarin experiences in Japan: acute toxicity and long-term effects. J Neurol Sci. 2006;249(1):76-85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Dhara, VR, Dhara, R. The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal: a review of health effects. Arch Environ Health. 2002;57(5):391-404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Hyams, KC, Murphy, FM, Wessely, S. Responding to chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorism: the indirect and long-term health effects may present the greatest challenge. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2002;27(2):273-291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Brackbill, RM, Thorpe, LE, DiGrande, L, et al. Surveillance for World Trade Center disaster health effects among survivors of collapsed and damaged buildings. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2006;55(2):1-18.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Zock, JP, Rodriguez-Trigo, G, Pozo-Rodriguez, F, et al. Prolonged respiratory symptoms in clean-up workers of the Prestige oil spill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176(6):610-616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Health Protection Agency. Continuing Public Health Response to the London Bombings of 7 July 2005. December 2005. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947369970. Accessed February 16, 2012.Google Scholar
8. Health Protection Agency. The Public Health Impact of the Buncefield Oil Depot Fire. London. July 2006. http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947375551. Accessed February 16, 2012.Google Scholar
9.Stather, JW. The polonium-210 poisoning in London. J Radiol Prot. 2007;27:1-3.Google Scholar
10.Jones, J, Hunter, D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:376-380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Rauch, W. The decision Delphi. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1979;15:159-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:55.Google Scholar
13.Bongers, S, Janssen, NA, Reiss, B, et al. Challenges of exposure assessment for health studies in the aftermath of chemical incidents and disasters. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2008;18(4):341-359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Bhandari, NR, Syal, AK, Kambo, I, et al. Pregnancy outcome survey in women exposed to toxic gas at Bhopal. Indian J Med Res. 1990;92:28-33.Google Scholar
15.Pesatori, AC, Consonni, D, Rubagotti, M, et al. Cancer incidence in the population exposed to dioxin after the “Seveso accident”: twenty years of follow-up. Environ Health. 2009;8:39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Lo, SH, Chan, CC, Chen, WC, et al. Grand rounds: outbreak of hematologic abnormalities in a community of people exposed to leakage of fire extinguisher gas. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(11):1713-1717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Alexeeff, GV, Shusterman, DJ, Howd, RA, et al. Dose-response assessment of airborne methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) following a metam sodium spill. Risk Anal. 1994;14(2):191-198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.World Health Organization. Assessing the health consequences of major chemical incidents–epidemiological approaches. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1997.Google Scholar
19.Bromet, EJ, Havenaar, JM. Psychological and perceived health effects of the Chernobyl disaster: a 20-year review. Health Phys. 2007;93(5):516-521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Ackermann-Liebrich, UA, Braun, C, Rapp, RC. Epidemiologic analysis of an environmental disaster: the Schweizerhalle experience. Environ Res. 1992;58(1):1-14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Uijt de Haag, PA, Smetsers, RC, Witlox, HW, et al. Evaluating the risk from depleted uranium after the Boeing 747-258F crash in Amsterdam, 1992. J Hazard Mater. 2000;76(1):39-58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Traupe, H, Menge, G, Kandt, I, et al. Higher frequency of atopic dermatitis and decrease in viral warts among children exposed to chemicals liberated in a chemical accident in Frankfurt, Germany. Dermatology. 1997;195(2):112-118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Subgroup Report on the Lowermoor Water Pollution Incident. January 2005. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4102149.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2012.Google Scholar
24. London Regional Resilience Forum. Looking back, moving forward. The Multi-Agency Debrief. Lessons identified and progress since the terrorist events of 7 July 2005. September 2006. http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london-prepared/LRRF-7July-debrief-report.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2012.Google Scholar
25. Greater London Authority. Report of the 7 July Review Committee. June 2006. http://www.london.gov.uk/archive/assembly/reports/7july/vol3-individuals.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2012.Google Scholar
26. Health Protection Agency. Report of the 7 July Review Committee. Volume 2: Views and information from organisations. June 2006. http://legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/7july/vol2-organisations.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2012.Google Scholar
27. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Rapid Response Registry. Accessed February 16, 2012.Google Scholar
28.Ruijten, M. The Dutch experience with Health Impact Assessment of disasters. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17(1):5-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed