Medical Treatment of Radiological Casualties: Current Concepts

The threat of radiologic or nuclear terrorism is increasing, yet many physicians are unfamiliar with basic treatment principles for radiologic casualties. Patients may present for care after a covert radiation exposure, requiring an elevated level of suspicion by the physician. Traditional medical and surgical triage criteria should always take precedence over radiation exposure management or decontamination. External contamination from a radioactive cloud is easily evaluated using a simple Geiger-Müller counter and decontamination accomplished by prompt removal of clothing and traditional showering. Management of surgical conditions in the presence of persistent radioactive contamination should be dealt with in a conventional manner with health physics guidance. To be most effective in the medical management of a terrorist event involving high-level radiation, physicians should understand basic manifestations of the acute radiation syndrome, the available medical countermeasures, and the psychosocial implications of radiation incidents. Health policy considerations include stockpiling strategies, effective use of risk communications, and decisionmaking for shelter-in-place versus evacuation after a radiologic incident

Field Investigations of Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies

© 2008 by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved. This chapter discusses field investigations of disasters and emergencies. Topics covered include the historical development of field epidemiology in disasters and emergencies, role of the epidemiologist in disaster response, problems faced in the field, rapid quantitative needs assessment, and surveys

Preparedness and Preventive Behaviors for a Pandemic Disaster Caused by COVID-19 in Serbia

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The disease was first detected in Wuhan, the capital of China’s Hubei province, in December 2019 and has since spread globally, especially to Europe and North America, resulting in the ongoing global coronavirus pandemic disaster of 2019–2020. Although most cases have mild symptoms, there is some progression to viral pneumonia and multi-organ failure and death. More than 4.6 million cases have been registered across 216 countries and territories as of 19 April 2020, resulting in more than 311,000 deaths. Risk to communities with continued widespread disease transmission depends on characteristics of the virus, including how well it spreads between people; the severity of resulting illness; and the medical or other measures available to control the impact of the virus (for example, vaccines or medications that can treat the illness) and the relative success of these. In the absence of vaccines or medications, non-pharmaceutical interventions were the most important response strategy based on community interventions such as person-to-person distancing, mask-wearing, isolation and good personal hygiene (hand-washing)—all of which have been demonstrated can reduce the impact of this seemingly unstoppable globally spreading natural disaster. This paper presents the results of quantitative research regarding the level of citizen preparedness for disasters caused by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Serbia. The survey was conducted using a questionnaire that was requested and then collected online among 975 respondents during disaster in April 2020. The questionnaire examined citizens’ basic socio-economic and demographic characteristics, their knowledge, preparedness, risk perception and preventive measures taken individually and as a community to prevent the death and widespread transmission of novel coronavirus disease 2019 in the Republic of Serbia. Based on the findings that there are major differences in the public’s perception of risks posed by communicable disease threats such as presented by COVID-19, emergency management agencies should use these differences to develop targeted strategies to enhance community and national preparedness by promoting behavioral change and improving risk management decision-making

Use of a Modified Cluster Sampling Method to Perform Rapid Needs Assessment After Hurricane Andrew

Study objective: To rapidly obtain population-based estimates of needs in the early aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in South Florida. Methods: We used a modified cluster-sampling method (the Expanded Programme on Immunization [EPI] method) for three surveys. We selected a systematic sample of 30 quarter-mile square clusters for each survey and, beginning from a random start, interviewed members of seven consecutive occupied households in each cluster. Two surveys were of the most affected area (1990 population, 32,672) at three and ten days after the hurricane struck; one survey was of a less affected area (1990 population, 15,576) seven days after the hurricane struck. Measurements and main results: Results were available within 24 hours of beginning each survey. Initial findings emphasized the need for restoring utilities and sanitation and helped to focus medical relief on primary care and preventive services. The second survey of the most affected area showed improvement in the availability of food, water, electricity, and sanitation ( P ≤ .05). There was no evidence of disease outbreaks. Conclusion: For the first time, the EPI method provided population-based information to guide and evaluate relief operations after a sudden-impact natural disaster. An improvement over previous approaches, the EPI method warrants further evaluation as a needs assessment tool in acute disasters. [Hlady WG, Quenemoen LE, Armenia-Cope RR, Hurt KJ, Malilay J, Noji EK, Wurm G: Use of a modified cluster sampling method to perform rapid needs assessment after Hurricane Andrew. Ann Emerg Med April 1994;23:719-725.