Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Hospital Preparedness: A Pilot Program for Radiation ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Hospital Preparedness: A Pilot Program for Radiation ...


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Project took place from Sept 06 to Dec 07 – period of 15 months
    WHC first test, then rolled out to GUH, FSH
    WHC 908 beds
    FSH 329 beds
    GUH 609 beds
  • CHB 397 beds
    Mary washington 397 beds
  • Problem: How can you equip a hospital to detect radioactive contamination on its patients.
    This is a turnkey radiation detection toolkit that we develop for the Department of Health and Human Services.
    It contains everything an Emergency Department or hospital needs to detect a patient who is contaminated with radioactivity
    It contains, the detectors, instructions for their installation, the protocol the staff should follow if the detectors alarm, training material for the staff to learn the protocol, drills and exercises to test the system, and all the equipment necessary to carry this out (note the Geiger Counter)
    Our goal is to create a high capability military resource and national security asset right here in the nation’s capital.
    We have the knowledge, assets, talent, and commitment
  • Transcript

    • 1. Hospital Preparedness: A Pilot Program for Radiation Monitoring in Emergency Departments Susan E. Eckert, RN, MSN Washington Hospital Center/ ER One Institute CAPT Michael A. Noska, MS, USPHS Dept. of Health and Human Services/ Food and Drug Administration
    • 2. This work was performed under HHS Contract HHSP2332006425OEC: Pilot Program for Radiation Monitoring in Emergency Departments
    • 3. Project Overview  Primary Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of using radiation monitors in hospital emergency department entrances  Build upon work performed by AFRRI  Secondary Purpose: To provide ED clinicians and staff with necessary tools and resources to mount an initial response to a radiological event
    • 4. Project Goals  Fulfill HHS’s ESF-8 responsibility for medical and public health emergency response, including population monitoring, decon, medical countermeasures, etc.  Provide early notification to hospital of contaminated patients for triage, treatment and response  Protect hospital staff and facilities
    • 5. Why is protection needed?  National Planning Scenarios 1 & 10  Unknown/uncertain contamination  Self-referring victims  Surreptitious exposure  Radiations of concern  Penetrating/non-penetrating  External vs. internal  Contamination control
    • 6. Rationale for Selection of System  Technical features  Energy (keV)  Detector type  Alarm methodology and sensitivity  Human factors  Cost  Web based program
    • 7. Laboratory Testing  AFFRI Low Dose Irradiation Facility  Optimize operational parameters  Test sensitivity  Construction of gantry  Sources  PC monitoring
    • 8. System Set-Up  Area monitor configuration  2 inch by 2 inch NaI scintillation detector wrapped in a 1/32” (0.39mm) lead shield  300 keV discriminator  Based on anticipated hospital use of isotopes vs. agents used in RDD  Firmware set to ignore bursts of energy exceeding the discriminator threshold for 1 second  Response to X-Ray machine  Voltage set by factory in response to Ba-133  Voltage set at 525V-575V
    • 9. Project Methodology  Ludlum Area Monitors 375-10, configured based on the AFRRI study, were installed at the entrances of three Emergency Departments  Washington Hospital Center (WHC)  Franklin Square Hospital Center (FSH)  Georgetown University Hospital (GUH)  Data collected daily at all sites for a 6 month period  Minimum, maximum and average radiation levels  Alarm conditions
    • 10. Project Methodology  Additional testing performed to evaluate the devices  Check Source Testing  Nuclear Medicine Patient Trial  Reference materials developed for clinicians  Procedures :  Receipt and Install of Equipment  Establishing Background Radiation Levels  Establishing Check Source Ranges  Establishing-Setting Alarm Limits  Quality Assurance Testing
    • 11. Project Methodology  Reference materials developed for clinicians:  Quick Reference Tools  Response guide (algorithm)  Isotopes that cause/do not cause an alarm  PPE- don-doff procedure  Geiger counter operations-performing a patient survey  Education  On-line/printed modules:  Geiger counter operations  Performing a patient survey  Pre-post tests  3D Simulations  Geiger counter  Area monitor
    • 12. Project Methodology  Reference materials developed for clinicians:  Tools  Staff talking points  Remote alarm signage  Dosimeter log  QA documentation tool- area monitor  Radiation survey patient documentation tool
    • 13. Project Methodology  Drills conducted once training provided at the 3 main sites  Exercise materials developed based on: Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) and AHRQ Drill Evaluation Tool  Objectives, outcome measures, scope of play, safety procedures, logistics, scenario, master event scenario list (MSEL) victim cards, player briefing, evaluation tool, after action report (AAR) and corrective action plan templates  Materials revised as needed
    • 14. Project Methodology  Toolkit created  Included:  Equipment  All educational and reference materials  Toolkit deployed to:  Children’s Hospital Boston  Mary Washington Hospital, Fredericksburg, VA  Final revisions to materials completed
    • 15. Project Specifics  Monitors mounted at ED entrances  Total of 9 devices in 3 hospitals  Devices have local alarms and remote alarms at central area  Data transmitted from each device via software every 5 seconds (2 seconds if alarm condition)  Min/Max/Avg readings calculated daily  QA check with Cesium-137 check source performed weekly
    • 16. Software  Pulls data from device  Extensive testing and revisions performed  2 upgrades to existing program  1 new release  Allows viewing from any site, multiple users to access data, user- friendly screens and queries  NOT tested fully  Problems also experienced at pilot sites
    • 17. Data Summary Data Type Interval Site Collected Min/Max/Avg Background Readings Daily-12/10/06-06/10/07 WHC/FSH/GUH Alarm Condition Daily-12/10/06-06/10/07 WHC/FSH/GUH QA Check Weekly-12/10/06-06/10/07 WHC/FSH/GUH Response to Medical Isotopes 19 patients-Feb-Mar, 2007 WHC Geometry Testing March 2007 WHC Check Source Testing March 2007 WHC
    • 18. Device Data: Summary Daily Average Radiation Over Time by Monitor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190 199 208 217 Time (Days) RadationReading(uR/Hr) WHC1 WHC2 WHC3 FSH1 FSH2 FSH3 FSH4 GUH1 GUH2
    • 19. Device Data : ANOVA  Evaluated:  Among all 9 devices  Among devices within each hospital  Findings:  Statistically significant differences between the mean reading among all devices at 5% significance level  Statistically significant differences between the mean reading at devices within each hospital at 5% significance level
    • 20. Device Data: Alarm Activity  Evaluated number of false, positive and unknown alarms for all 9 monitors over the 6 month period  Included QA and other testing sources  Results:  Devices alarmed as anticipated  Alarms from unknown source relatively low  Range = 4-25  Highest # in 1 month= 5  Mean = 5.4 among all monitors
    • 21. Data Summary  Devices work as anticipated  Screen out most hospital isotopes, screen in possible agents used in an RDD  Alarm conditions not overwhelming for ED environment/clinicians  Differences in readings expected based on background, building material, storage of items near monitors
    • 22. Impact in the Hospital Environment  Installation  Site selection: devices and fixed alarms  Power and dataports  Monitoring alarms remotely  Supplementing manufacturer’s materials  Sustainment  Quality Assurance checks
    • 23. Staff Preparation- Not Labor Intensive  Introduction to system  Management of alarms  Development of reference tools  1 page maximum  Laminated, wallet & poster size  Development of response algorithm
    • 24. Treat Patient Pull PPE/Radiation Response Supplies Recent Nuclear Medicine Procedure? Locate and identify source (Stop all potential persons immediately) ED RADIATION ALARM RESPONSE GUIDE – QUICK REFERENCE ALARM Triage nurse responds Charge RN and MD back up triage Medically stable? No threat 1. Release person(s) 2. Reset alarm 3. Debrief staff Yes No Yes No 1. Notify Radiation Safety Officer. 2. Establish control zone. 3. Address need to activate disaster plan. 1. Notify Radiation Safety Officer. 2. Establish control zone. 3. Pull PPE radiation response supplies. 4. To decon area for survey/decon.
    • 25. Radiological Response  Development and provision of education on managing a radiological event  Differentiating small vs. large events  Ensuring initial treatment steps clearly understood  Treat first, remove clothing, proper PPE  Defining control zones: inside and outside  Evaluating devices needed for mass casualties  Hardwiring access to external resources  REMM, REAC/TS, WRAMC RAMT
    • 26. Drills  Essential for identifying gaps  PPE  Control zones  Surveying  Establishing background, documenting  Critical in increasing confidence and competence
    • 27. Lessons Learned  Detection Devices worked as anticipated  Screened out most hospital isotopes  Screened in possible agents used in an RDD  Alarm conditions not overwhelming for an ED environment /clinicians  Natural alarms from hospital isotopes kept staff mindful (doctrine of daily routine)  Differences in background readings occurred secondary to location, building material and storage of items near monitors
    • 28. Lessons Learned 2  Detectors should be mounted at 5 foot height not 3 feet  Alarm notification at entrance portal PLUS in main clinical arena  Alarms both auditory and visual  Alarms activate 1 – 5 x a month from hospital isotopes  I-131 usual cause of alarm  Level of knowledge of radiation emergencies by average health care provider: Low
    • 29. Lessons Learned 3  There is enormous opportunity to improve the management of a radiological event by hospital personnel  Installation of the system had the unintended benefit on increasing confidence and competence of staff  Simple messaging is most likely to succeed
    • 30. Lessons Learned 4  Technical factors cannot be considered in a vacuum (human factors)  Need to be aware of operational environment  Strong collaboration between physicists, hospital personnel and vendor  Protocols, SOPs and training
    • 31. Project Summary  Devised and validated a simple, low cost system for radiation detection following accidents or terrorist events  Developed a deployable toolkit for hospital emergency response  Developed a rad training and response program for hospital personnel
    • 32. THANKS TO:  Project Officer: Dr. George Alexander  AFFRI Staff: LCDR John Crapo, LT Anamarie Dent  HHS Staff: Dr. Norm Coleman  Healthcare Partners: Children’s Hospital- Boston, Franklin Square Hospital, Georgetown University Hospital, Mary Washington Hospital, Washington Hospital Center  Industry Partners: Atlantic Nuclear, Ludlum Instruments
    • 33. Contact Info:  CAPT Michael Noska   240-276-3331  Susan Eckert   202-877-3113