Critical challenges ahead in bioterrorism preparedness training for clinicians.

PURPOSE: A survey was distributed to determine physicians' confidence levels in recognizing potential Category-A bioterrorism disease threats (e.g., smallpox, anthrax), preferred means of obtaining continuing medical education (CME) credits, and their knowledge of the Connecticut Department of Public Health's (DPH) disease reporting requirements. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to all physicians in the three-hospital Yale New Haven Health (YNHH) System (2,174) from January to March 2004; there were 820 respondents for a 37.7% response rate. RESULTS: A total of 71% of physicians indicated that they were "not confident" that they could recognize five of the infectious agents named; they had higher confidence rates for smallpox (48.8%). Infectious diseases and emergency medicine physicians had the highest rates of confidence. Seventy-eight percent of physicians indicated conferences and lectures as their preferred CME learning modality. Nearly 72% of physicians reported a low familiarity with the DPH reporting requirements. DISCUSSION: The results highlighted the breadth of perceived weaknesses among clinicians from disease recognition to reporting incidents, which signifies the need for greater training in these areas. As clinicians themselves emphasized their lack of skills and knowledge in this area, there should be a rapid development and dissemination of problem-based learning CME courses in bioterrorism preparedness.

Clinical guidelines for responding to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and trauma/burn mass casualty incidents: Quick reference guides for emergency department staff.

The word 'DISASTER' may be used as a mnemonic for listing the critical elements of emergency response. The National Disaster Life Support Education Foundation's (NDLSEC) DISASTER paradigm emphasises out-of-hospital emergency response and includes the following elements: (1) detect; (2) incident command system; (3) security and safety; (4) assessment; (5) support; (6) triage and treatment; (7) evacuate; and (8) recovery. This paper describes how the DISASTER paradigm was used to create a series of clinical guidelines to assist the preparedness effort of hospitals for mitigating chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear incidents or explosive devices resulting in trauma/burn mass casualty incidents (MCIs) and their initial response to these events. Descriptive information was obtained from observations and records associated with this project. The information contributed by a group of subject matter experts in disaster medicine, at the Yale New Haven Health System Center for Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response was used to author the clinical guidelines. Akin to the paradigm developed by the NDLSEC for conducting on-scene activities, the clinical guidelines use the letters in the word 'disaster' as a mnemonic for recalling the main elements required for mitigating MCIs in the hospital emergency department.