TY - JOUR T1 - Facilities for chemical decontamination in accident and emergency departments in the United Kingdom JF - Emergency Medicine Journal JO - Emerg Med J SP - 453 LP - 457 DO - 10.1136/emj.19.5.453 VL - 19 IS - 5 AU - G George AU - K Ramsay AU - M Rochester AU - R Seah AU - H Spencer AU - D Vijayasankar AU - L Vasicuro Y1 - 2002/09/01 UR - http://emj.bmj.com/content/19/5/453.abstract N2 - 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. ER -