ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Facilities for chemical decontamination in accident and emergency departments in the United Kingdom

G George, K Ramsay, M Rochester, R Seah, H Spencer, D Vijayasankar, L Vasicuro

Accident and Emergency Department, Horton Hospital, Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust, Banbury, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr G George, Accident and Emergency Department, Horton Hospital, Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust, Banbury, Oxon OX16 9AL, UK

Objective: To audit the facilities for chemical decontamination, with special reference to cyanide poisoning, in all major accident and emergency departments in the UK.

Method: A simple postal questionnaire was used to audit planning, premises, equipment, protection for staff, and stocks of specific antidotes to cyanide poisoning.

Results: 227 questionnaires from 261 departments (87%) were returned and used in the survey. Of the 227 departments who responded, 151 (66%) had a written plan; 168 (74%) departments had premises for decontamination; 55 (24%) were judged to have satisfactory premises; 146 (64%) departments had a shower or hose for decontamination; 60 (26%) departments had a decontamination trolley suitable for "stretcher" patients; 203 (89%) had some protective equipment for staff but only 77 (34%) had complete protection—that is, goggles, chemical resistant clothing, and breathing apparatus. In the authors’ opinion only seven (3%) departments had satisfactory premises and equipment to treat "stretcher" patients and full protection for staff. A further 11 (5%) departments were equipped to manage ambulant patients at a similar level. Some 205 (90%) departments stocked one or more antidotes to cyanide and 77 (34%) stocked all four antidotes. Thirty four (15%) departments held all four antidotes to cyanide and had full protection for staff. Only five (2%) departments had satisfactory premises and equipment to treat "stretcher" patients, full protection for staff, and at least three of four antidotes.

Conclusions: Most departments had some equipment for chemical decontamination. However, there were major inconsistencies in the range of equipment held and these limited its usefulness. Only a small minority of departments was satisfactorily equipped to deal with a serious chemical incident.

Keywords: chemical decontamination

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Primary Survey

Jim Wardrope, Pete Driscoll
Emerg. Med. J. 2002 19: 378. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Edkins, A., Murray, V. (2005). Management of chemically contaminated bodies. JRSM 98: 141-145 [Full Text]  
• Stacey, R., Morfey, D., Payne, S. (2004). Secondary contamination in organophosphate poisoning: analysis of an incident. QJM 97: 75-80 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Crawford, I W F, Mackway-Jones, K, Russell, D R, Carley, S D (2004). Delphi based consensus study into planning for chemical incidents. Emerg. Med. J. 21: 24-28 [Abstract] [Full Text]