Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:21:41.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preparedness of Finnish Emergency Medical Services for Chemical Emergencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2016

Timo J. Jama  and
Markku J. Kuisma
Timo J. Jama*
Affiliation:
Centre for Prehospital Care and Emergency Medicine, Päijät-Häme Social and Healthcare Group, Lahti, Finland
Markku J. Kuisma
Affiliation:
Emergency Medical Services, Department of Emergency Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland
*
Correspondence: Timo Jama, MD, MSc (EMDM) Päijät-Häme Social and Healthcare Group Centre for Prehospital Care and Emergency Medicine Keskussairaalankatu 7 15850 Lahti, Finland E-mail: timo.jama@phsotey.fi
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

The preparedness level of Finnish Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for treating chemical emergencies is unknown. The aim of this study was to survey the preparedness level of EMS systems for managing and handling mass-casualty chemical incidents in the prehospital phase in Finland.

Hypothesis

The study hypothesis was that university hospital districts would have better clinical capability to treat patients than would central hospital districts in terms of the number of patients treated in the field within one hour after dispatching as well as patients transported to hospital within one hour or two hours after dispatching.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted as a Webropol (Wuppertal, Germany) survey. All hospital districts (n=20) in continental Finland were asked about their EMS preparedness level in terms of capability of treating and transporting chemically affected patients in the field. Their capability for decontamination of affected patients in the field was also inquired.

Results

University hospital district-based EMS systems had at least 20% better absolute clinical capacity than central hospital-based EMS systems for treating chemically affected patients concerning all treatments inquired about, except the capacity for non-invasive ventilation (NIV)/continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment in the field. Overall, there was a good level of preparedness for treating chemical accident patients with supplemental oxygen, bronchodilators, and inhaled corticosteroids. Preparedness for providing antidote therapy in cases of cyanide gas exposure was, in general, low. The variation among the hospital districts was remarkable. Only nine of 15 central hospital district EMS had a mobile decontamination unit available, whereas four of five university hospital districts had one.

Conclusion

Emergency Medical Services capacity in Finland for treating chemically affected patients in the field needs to be improved, especially in terms of antidote therapy. Mobile decontamination units should be available in all hospital districts.

JamaTJ, KuismaMJ. Preparedness of Finnish Emergency Medical Services for Chemical Emergencies. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(4):392–396.

Keywords

CBRNchemical incidentsdecontaminationEMSpreparedness
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 392 - 396
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2016 

Introduction

Environmentally hazardous materials usually are grouped according to the type of threat they pose: chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN).Reference Jama and Kuisma 1 , Reference Thornton, Court and Meara 2 A chemical substance release may be accidental or it may be deliberate and intended to harm people.Reference Barelli, Biondi and Soave 3 , Reference Baker 4 Of CBRN threats, chemical substances can be considered the most challenging because of the rapid onset of action and potentially lethal consequences within minutes.Reference Kales and Christiani 5 First responders are often Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers.Reference Chilcott 6 Careful planning, training, and preparedness are the key components in the successful management of mass-chemical incidents, both in hospitals and in the field by EMS providers.Reference Thornton, Court and Meara 2 , Reference Baker 4 , Reference Thompson, Rehn, Lossius and Lockey 7 , Reference Kirk and Deaton 8 However, there are frequent reports of a lack of preparedness and EMS provider training for chemical mass-casualty situations.Reference Kenar and Karayilanoglu 9 - Reference Chaput, Deluhery and Stake 13

The level of Finnish EMS preparedness for chemical mass-casualty situations is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the current level of preparedness of the Finnish EMS for responding to chemical mass-casualty situations in Finland. The results can be utilized for improving the EMS preparedness for such situations in Finland.

This study was a cross-sectional survey. The publication is the result of a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Disaster Medicine (European Master in Disaster Medicine) by the first author.

Materials and Methods

Finland is divided into 20 independent hospital districts that are each responsible for arranging EMS for their region under Finnish health care legislation. Five of these districts are university hospital-based and the rest are central hospital-based. Under Finnish legislation, at least one medical director is required in each district to supervise and control the EMS system. Demographics of each hospital district and EMS are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of Hospital Districts in Finland

a At the end of 2014.

b Full-time and part-time units.

c University Hospital Districts.

The study hypothesis was that university hospital districts have at least 20% better EMS preparedness, quantitatively, for treating chemically injured patients in the field than do non-university hospital districts.

The survey was conducted via the electronic Webropol 2.0 (Wuppertal, Germany) online platform. Webropol is a web-based tool for creating electronic questionnaires. The validity of the questions in the study questionnaire was tested in July 2014 by three medical directors. The final study questionnaire was sent as a Webropol survey to all the medical directors of the EMS (n=26) in Finland in September 2014, excepting those who had already responded during the validation phase. These medical directors were asked to evaluate their own regional EMS’s capacity and preparedness for chemical threats and accidents. The study questions were scenario-based (Appendix; available online only) and structured on three common, world-wide, chemical threats: choline esterase inhibitors (organophosphates), asphyxiates (cyanide gas), and pulmonary irritants (ammonium gas). In addition, the medical directors were asked to estimate the number of patients their regional EMS would be capable of treating with supplemental oxygen, to evaluate their EMS’s capacity to intubate and ventilate patients in the field, and to evaluate the EMS’s transport capacity. Decontamination preparedness was also inquired. The medical directors were asked to evaluate their EMS’s capacity for treatment within one hour after dispatch and their capacity for transport within one and two hours after dispatch. The accident site in each scenario was defined to be at a distance of five kilometers from the regional treating hospital. In addition to their daily EMS resources, the medical directors were also asked to include and evaluate the supplemental resources of their mass-casualty incident plans as operative in the field.

As the response rate was low for the first questionnaire (50%), a reminder was sent to non-responders in December 2014, inviting them again to participate in the study.

The results were transferred from the Webropol 2.0 database to MS Excel (Microsoft Corporation; Redmond, Washington USA) spreadsheet version 14.0.7153.5000 for analysis. Each question was analyzed for mean, maximum, and minimum and compared in three groups: all hospital districts, university hospital districts, and non-university hospital districts (Table 2). The University Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa (HUS; 24 municipalities, Finland) is different from the others because it is divided into seven sub-districts; however, the results of HUS are reported here as those of one district.

Table 2 Absolute Number of Patients the EMS is Capable of Treating in the Field within One Hour (mean (min-max)) and Treatment Capacity per 10,000 Inhabitants

(Note: Decontamination unit capability is reported as the number of hospital districts in which it is available.)

Abbreviations: CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; EMS, Emergency Medical Services; NIV, non-invasive ventilation.

No patient identification or personal data were used in the study.

Results

The response rate was 100% (20/20). Results are summarized in Table 2.

Supplemental Oxygen

Mean capacity for treating affected patients with supplemental oxygen within one hour was 36.0 patients for non-university hospital districts and 47.6 patients for university hospital districts.

Intubation and Ventilation

Non-university hospital districts were able to intubate and ventilate 7.7 patients in the field within one hour and university hospital districts were able to treat 10.2 patients.

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)/Non-invasive Ventilation (NIV)

Mean capacity for prehospital non-invasive ventilation support (NIV) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy within one hour was 13.2 patients for non-university hospital districts and 15.4 for university hospital districts.

Oxime Therapy

Mean treatment capacity for prehospital oxime therapy (obidoxime 250 mg intravenous [IV]/intramuscular) within one hour was 9.3 patients for non-university hospital districts and 49.0 for university hospital districts.

Atropine Therapy

Mean treatment capacity for atropinization (at least 2.0 mg dose IV) in the field within one hour was 39.1 patients for non-university hospital districts and 71.5 for university hospital districts.

Cyanide Antidote Therapy

All districts used hydroxocobalamine as the first antidote for cyanide. Mean treatment capacity (5.0 g dose) for cyanide intoxication was 4.4 patients for non-university hospital districts and 8.9 for university hospital districts. Four non-university hospital districts had, in addition, amyl nitrate in operative use in the field, and one had sodium thiosulphate as well. Only one university hospital district reported another supplement antidote (sodium thiosulphate) to be in use in the field.

Inhaled Bronchodilator Therapy

Mean treatment capacity for obstructive pulmonary irritants (such as ammonium gas) by inhaled bronchodilators within one hour in the field was 49.5 patients for non-university hospital districts and 77.7 for university hospital districts.

Inhaled Corticosteroid Therapy

Mean treatment capacity for pulmonary irritants by inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide) within one hour was 39.2 patients for non-university hospital districts and 58.2 for university hospital districts.

Field Decontamination

Sixty percent (n=9) of non-university hospital districts were prepared to dispatch a mobile decontamination unit to the field while 80% of university hospital districts were prepared to do so (n=4). These decontamination units were operated by the fire department in all districts that had such field capability.

Transport Capacity

Mean transport capacity from accident site to hospital for non-university hospital districts was 14.7 patients within one hour and 36.9 patients within two hours; for university hospital districts it was 27.2 patients within one hour and 69.5 patients within two hours.

Discussion

There was a clear trend that EMS preparedness for managing chemical emergencies was better in university hospital districts than in central hospital districts in terms of absolute number of treated patients in the field. A particularly great difference was noticed in the treatment capacity for oxime therapy (427% better), hydroxocobalamine therapy (102%), atropine therapy (83%), and transport capacity (85%-88%). Only the capacity for CPAP/NIV treatment in the field (16.7% better) was under the 20% level which was preset in the study hypothesis for university hospital districts. When focusing on treatment capacity per 10,000 inhabitants, the differences between university hospital districts vs central hospital districts were lower (Table 2).

Emergency Medical Services should have strong knowledge and preparedness levels for responding adequately and quickly to chemical accidents and deliberate releases of toxic substances. The cornerstones of successful prehospital management of chemical mass-casualty situations include the rapid identification of the substance, personal protective equipment and its proper use, decontamination, proper triage, and Basic and Advanced Life Support and antidote therapy, if indicated.Reference Thornton, Court and Meara 2 , Reference Baker 4 , Reference Thompson, Rehn, Lossius and Lockey 7 , Reference Van der Woude, Cock and Bierens 14 , Reference Hulse, Davies and Simpson 15 The identification of toxins can be challenging in the field. There, the concept of toxidrome may help EMS providers.Reference Holland and Cawthon 16 , Reference Holstege and Borek 17 Field triage of chemically injured patients differs from normal trauma triage. A method has been proposed for CBRN triage,Reference Tomassoni, French and Walter 18 , Reference Cone and Koenig 19 but it has not been validated.Reference Cone, MacMillan, Parwani and Van Gelder 20

Lessons learned focus on preparedness of EMS and hospitals for chemical mass-casualty situations and disasters. The lack of decontamination possibilities affects prehospital care providers and hospital staff, placing them at higher risk of exposure to potentially lethal chemicals and at higher risk of becoming victims themselves.Reference Culley and Svendsen 21 - Reference Nakajima, Sato, Morita and Yanagisawa 23 The same challenge has been observed in most European countries as well.Reference Okumura, Suzuki and Fukuda 24

Limitations

This study was a survey and the numbers given by the respondents were estimates. Despite having the best knowledge of their EMS capacity, the medical directors may under- or over-estimate their regional EMS capacity. This can lead to bias. It was not possible to reduce this by this study design. Results may, in addition, vary by time of day (office hours or at night), by seasonal reasons (reduced holiday or weekend preparedness), or by the overcrowding of a local EMS system.

All hospital districts in Finland are unique: their geographical areas are unique, population densities vary, and their EMS organizations are different, as are their resources and the locations of their receiving hospitals. An accident site set at five kilometers from the treating hospital was chosen in order to standardize the transport time. According to the hospital districts’ own risk analyses, non-standardized distances would give different results due to the geographical diversity of the EMS units.

Conclusions

Emergency Medical Services capacity in Finland for treating chemically affected patients in the field needs to be improved, especially in terms of antidote therapy. Preparedness for administering antidote therapy for cyanide gas exposure was, in general, low. Overall, there was a good level of preparedness for treating chemical accident patients with supplemental oxygen, bronchodilators, and inhaled corticosteroids. University hospital-based districts were better prepared for treating chemically affected patients in the term of absolute treatment capacity, but the differences were moderate when considering relative capacity. The variation among the hospital districts was remarkable.

Decontamination preparedness in the field in Finland urgently needs to be improved, especially in non-university hospital districts. Mobile decontamination units are recommended for all hospital districts in Finland.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X16000546

References

1. Thornton, R, Court, B, Meara, J, et al. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear terrorism: an introduction for occupational physicians. Occup Med (Lond). 2004;54(2):101-109.Google Scholar
2. Barelli, A, Biondi, I, Soave, M, et al. The comprehensive medical preparedness in chemical emergencies: the chain of chemical survival. Eur J Emerg Med. 2008;15(2):110-118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Baker, D. Civilian exposure to toxic agents: emergency medical response. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2004;19(2):174-178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Kales, SN, Christiani, DC. Acute chemical emergencies. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(8):800-808.Google Scholar
5. Chilcott, RP. Managing mass casualties and decontamination. Environ Int. 2014;72:37-45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Thompson, J, Rehn, M, Lossius, HM, Lockey, D. Risks to emergency medical responders at terrorist incidents: a narrative review of the medical literature. Crit Care. 2014;18(5):521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Kirk, MA, Deaton, ML. Bringing order out of chaos: effective strategies for medical response to mass chemical exposure. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2007;25(2):527-548.Google Scholar
8. Kenar, L, Karayilanoglu, T. Prehospital management and medical intervention after a chemical attack. Emerg Med J. 2004;21(1):84-88.Google Scholar
9. Kollek, D, Welsford, M, Wanger, K. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear preparedness training for emergency medical services providers. CJEM. 2009;11(4):337-342.Google Scholar
10. Barach, P, Rivkind, A, Israeli, A, et al. Emergency preparedness and response in Israel during the Gulf War. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32(2):224-233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Phelps, S. Mission failure: Emergency Medical Services response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22(4):293-296.Google Scholar
12. Chaput, CJ, Deluhery, MR, Stake, CE, et al. Disaster training for prehospital providers. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007;11(4):458-465.Google Scholar
13. Van der Woude, I, Cock, JS, Bierens, JJLM, et al. TAP CBRN preparedness: knowledge, training, and networks. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(4):s65-s69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Hulse, EJ, Davies, JOJ, Simpson, AJ, et al. Respiratory complications of organophosphorus nerve agent and insecticide poisoning. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2014;190(12):1342-1354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Holland, MG, Cawthon, D. Personal protective equipment and decontamination of adults and children. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2015;33(1):51-86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Holstege, CP, Borek, HA. Toxidromes. Crit Care Clin. 2012;28(4):479-498.Google Scholar
17. Tomassoni, AJ, French, RNE, Walter, FG. Toxic industrial chemicals and chemical weapons: exposure, identification, and management by syndrome. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2015;33(1):13-36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Cone, DC, Koenig, KL. Mass casualty triage in the chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear environment. Eur J Emerg Med. 2005;12(6):287-302.Google Scholar
19. Cone, DC, MacMillan, DS, Parwani, V, Van Gelder, C. Pilot test of a proposed chemical/biological/radiation/nuclear-capable mass casualty triage system. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008;12(2):236-240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Culley, JM, Svendsen, E. A review of the literature on the validity of mass casualty triage systems with a focus on chemical exposures. Am J Disaster Med. 2014;9(2):137-150.Google Scholar
21. Tokuda, Y, Kikuchi, M, Takahashi, O, Stein, GH. Prehospital management of sarin nerve gas terrorism in urban settings: 10 years of progress after the Tokyo subway sarin attack. Resuscitation. 2006;68(2):193-202.Google Scholar
22. Nakajima, T, Sato, S, Morita, H, Yanagisawa, N. Sarin poisoning of a rescue team in the Matsumoto sarin incident in Japan. Occup Environ Med. 1997;54(10):697-701.Google Scholar
23. Okumura, T, Suzuki, K, Fukuda, A, et al. The Tokyo subway sarin attack: disaster management. Part 2: hospital response. Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5(6):618-624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Domres, BD, Rashid, A, Grundgeiger, J, et al. European survey on decontamination in mass casualty incidents. Am J Disaster Med. 2009;4(3):147-152.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Characteristics of Hospital Districts in Finland

Figure 1

Table 2 Absolute Number of Patients the EMS is Capable of Treating in the Field within One Hour (mean (min-max)) and Treatment Capacity per 10,000 Inhabitants

Supplementary material: File

Jama and Kuisma supplementary material

Appendix

Download Jama and Kuisma supplementary material(File)
File 29.2 KB