Mass Casualty Decontamination in a Chemical or Radiological/Nuclear Incident with External Contamination: Guiding Principles and Research Needs.

Hazardous chemical, radiological, and nuclear materials threaten public health in scenarios of accidental or intentional release which can lead to external contamination of people.  Without intervention, the contamination could cause severe adverse health effects, through systemic absorption by the contaminated casualties as well as spread of contamination to other people, medical equipment, and facilities.  Timely decontamination can prevent or interrupt absorption into the body and minimize opportunities for spread of the contamination, thereby mitigating the health impact of the incident.  Although the specific physicochemical characteristics of the hazardous material(s) will determine the nature of an incident and its risks, some decontamination and medical challenges and recommended response strategies are common among chemical and radioactive material incidents.  Furthermore, the identity of the hazardous material released may not be known early in an incident.  Therefore, it may be beneficial to compare the evidence and harmonize approaches between chemical and radioactive contamination incidents.  Experts from the Global Health Security Initiative's Chemical and Radiological/Nuclear Working Groups present here a succinct summary of guiding principles for planning and response based on current best practices, as well as research needs, to address the challenges of managing contaminated casualties in a chemical or radiological/nuclear incident.

Continued vigilance - development of an online evaluation tool for assessing preparedness of medical facilities for biological events.

OBJECTIVE: Effective response to biological events necessitates ongoing evaluation of preparedness. This study was a bilateral German-Israeli collaboration aimed at developing an evaluation tool for assessing preparedness of medical facilities for biological events. METHODS: Measurable parameters were identified through a literature review for inclusion in the evaluation tool and disseminated to 228 content experts in two modified Delphi cycles. Focus groups were conducted to identify psychosocial needs of the medical teams. Table-top and functional exercises were implemented to review applicability of the tool. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen experts from Germany and Israel participated in the modified Delphi. Out of 188 parameters that were identified, 183 achieved a consensus of >75% of the content experts. Following comments recommended in the Delphi cycles, and feedback from focus groups and hospital exercises, the final tool consisted of 172 parameters. Median level of importance of each parameter was calculated based on ranking recommended in the Delphi process. Computerized web-based software was developed to calculate scores of preparedness for biological events. CONCLUSION: Ongoing evaluation means, such as the tool developed in the study, can facilitate the need for a valid and reliable mechanism that may be widely adopted and implemented as quality assurance measures. The tool is based on measurable parameters and indicators that can effectively present strengths and weaknesses in managing a response to a public health threat, and accordingly, steps can be implemented to improve readiness. Adoption of such a tool is an important component of assuring public health and effective emergency management.

Hygiene perception changes during the influenza A H1N1 pandemic in Germany: incorporating the results of two cross-sectional telephone surveys 2008-2009.

BACKGROUND: The federal campaign Wir gegen Viren [Us against viruses] promoted hygiene in Germany during the influenza A H1N1 pandemic in 2009. The intervention aimed to encourage people to protect themselves against respiratory infections by simple means of hygiene behaviour. Quantitative research was carried out to outline changes in hygiene perception of the population over time, and to find out whether the potential hygiene perception changes were consistent to the federal campaign about hygiene or not. METHODS: To determine changes in the hygiene perception of the population, two cross-sectional telephone surveys were held, each one with n = 2006 participants. The initial survey was carried out before the influenza A H1N1 pandemic in calendar week 49-51 in 2008 and the second in week 48 in 2009 directly after the peak of the pandemic in Germany. The questionnaire contained indicators about perceived hand hygiene efficacy, preference for coughing into the sleeve, propensity for presenteeism while showing symptoms of a cold and acceptance of hygiene masks. RESULTS: The proportion of people who perceive the efficacy of hand washing as "very good" increased significantly from 50.9% in 2008 to 61.1% in 2009. The proportion of people who perceive coughing into the sleeve as the best way to cough increased even more dramatically from 4.8% in 2008 to 38.3% in 2009. In contrast the propensity for presenteeism decreased significantly: The proportion of people who state that they always report to work while they show symptoms of a cold decreased from 50.8% in 2008 to 40.9% in 2009. Acceptance of hygiene masks has not changed significantly from 2008 to 2009. CONCLUSIONS: The results revealed changes in hygiene perception during influenza A H1N1 pandemic in Germany. The changes we found are in accordance with the hygiene recommendations given by the federal campaign Wir gegen Viren [Us against viruses]. Results can constitute a practical benchmark for future research about hygiene perception and hygiene promotion for adults. A pivotal question is: does the increase in hygiene perception persist after the pandemic has ceased?

A screening tool to prioritize public health risk associated with accidental or deliberate release of chemicals into the atmosphere.

The Chemical Events Working Group of the Global Health Security Initiative has developed a flexible screening tool for chemicals that present a risk when accidentally or deliberately released into the atmosphere. The tool is generic, semi-quantitative, independent of site, situation and scenario, encompasses all chemical hazards (toxicity, flammability and reactivity), and can be easily and quickly implemented by non-subject matter experts using freely available, authoritative information. Public health practitioners and planners can use the screening tool to assist them in directing their activities in each of the five stages of the disaster management cycle.

Unfinished business: efforts to define dual-use research of bioterrorism concern.

Biotechnological research poses a special security problem because of the duality between beneficial use and misuse. In order to find a balance between regulating potentially dangerous research and assuring scientific advancement, a number of assessments have tried to define which types of research are especially open to misuse and should therefore be considered dual-use research of special concern requiring rigorous oversight. So far, there has been no common understanding of what such activities are. Here we present a review of 27 assessments focusing on biological dual-use issues published between 1997 and 2008. Dual-use research activities identified by these assessments as being of special concern were compiled and compared. Moreover, from these 27 assessments, the primary research publications explicitly identified as examples of concerning research activities were extracted and analyzed. We extracted a core list of 11 activities of special concern and show that this list does not match with the reasons why primary research publications were identified as being of special concern. Additionally, we note that the 11 activities identified are not easily conducted or replicated, and therefore the likelihood of their being used in a high-tech mass casualty bioterrorism event should be reevaluated.