national toxic substance incidents program assessment of chemical exposures investigations
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
National Toxic Substance Incidents Program: Assessment of Chemical Exposures Investigations

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 43

National Toxic Substance Incidents Program: Assessment of Chemical Exposures Investigations - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 119 Views
  • Uploaded on

National Toxic Substance Incidents Program: Assessment of Chemical Exposures Investigations. Mary Anne Duncan, DVM, MPH United States Public Health Service Division of Health Studies Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'National Toxic Substance Incidents Program: Assessment of Chemical Exposures Investigations' - marged


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
national toxic substance incidents program assessment of chemical exposures investigations

National Toxic Substance Incidents Program: Assessment of Chemical Exposures Investigations

Mary Anne Duncan, DVM, MPH

United States Public Health Service

Division of Health Studies

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

slide2
The findings and conclusions in this presentation have not been formally disseminated by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.
national toxic substance incidents program ntsip
National Toxic Substance Incidents Program (NTSIP)
  • Partnership between ATSDR and multiple stakeholders such as state agencies, other government agencies, and industry
  • Expands on work of Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES) program
  • Comprehensive approach to toxic substance surveillance, prevention, and response
slide4
Development of a Body of Knowledge
  • Preparedness training
  • Targeted prevention activities
  • Identification of health effects of chemical exposures
three components
Three Components
  • State-based Surveillance
  • Incident Investigations
  • National Surveillance
state based surveillance
State-based Surveillance
  • Participating state health departments collect detailed incident data
  • Seven state health departments currently have cooperative agreements with ATSDR to participate in NTSIP:
    • Louisiana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin
state based surveillance1
State-based Surveillance
  • Enter data into ATSDR’s hazardous substance incidents surveillance system
  • Collect information on hazardous substance use and transport
  • Map location and movement of hazardous substances throughout communities
  • Identify and prioritize vulnerable areas for targeted prevention activities
state outreach programs
State Outreach Programs
  • Determine where hazard reduction principles or green chemistry can be applied
  • Promote hazard reduction through inherently safer technologies
  • Enhance preparedness and response capabilities
ace investigations
ACE Investigations
  • Provide assistance to state and local health agencies to:
    • Register persons exposed to large-scale acute chemical incidents
    • Characterize exposure and acute health effects
  • Incidents in which at least 100 persons are exposed to a toxic substance at levels that could produce acute health effects
ace investigations1
ACE Investigations
  • ATSDR team can deploy within 1–2 days of receiving a request for assistance from a state
  • Four possible components of the assessments:
    • Rapid Response Registry (RRR)
    • Community Survey
    • Biological Sampling
    • Environmental Sampling
rapid response registry
Rapid Response Registry
  • States register exposed persons before ATSDR team arrives
  • RRR is quick survey form: 38 questions / 5–6 minutes
  • Can ask just the four “critical” questions: name, sex, home address, phone numbers / 1–1.5 minutes
community survey
Community Survey
  • Use GIS to map area, possibly some plume modeling
  • Interview all potentially exposed persons or sample of exposed persons
  • Participants in community survey:
    • Community members
    • Local business employees
    • Responders
    • Hospital personnel
    • Others in the area
community survey1
Community Survey
  • Exposure history
  • Symptoms
  • Health services use
  • Demographics
  • Medical history
  • Other potential exposures
  • Needs resulting from the release
  • Communication effectiveness
  • Impact on pets
biological and environmental sampling
Biological and Environmental Sampling
  • Biological
    • If available
    • Blood
    • Urine
  • Environmental Sampling
    • When applicable
    • Air
    • Water
    • Soil
    • Surfaces
benefits of assessments after chemical releases
Benefits of Assessments after Chemical Releases
  • Community members
    • Know impact on community
    • May benefit from aid resulting from assessment
    • Receive results of biological testing
  • Local and state health department
    • Reassure community by action
    • Know impact on community
    • Better direct aid to the affected community
    • Identify issues to address on emergency plans
    • Improve community preparedness
benefits of assessments after chemical releases1
Benefits of Assessments after Chemical Releases
  • Emergency Responders
    • Identify issues to address on emergency plans
    • Identify best methods of communication
    • Assess shelter-in-place efficacy
  • Federal Agencies
    • Describe acute health effects of chemical exposures
    • Identify recurring issues to be addressed in mass casualty plans
    • Identify cohorts that may be followed for persistent health effects of acute exposures
national database of toxic substance incidents
National Database of Toxic Substance Incidents
  • Use the Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazmat Intelligence Portal (HIP)
  • Combine data from existing databases
    • National Response Center Incident Reporting Information System (IRIS)
    • DOT Hazardous Materials Incident System (HMIS)
    • NTSIP Data (Part 1)
  • Supplement with information from news media and other databases
national database of toxic substance incidents1
National Database of Toxic Substance Incidents
  • Operational early 2010
  • For use by:
    • Federal agencies
    • Responders
    • Public health officials
    • Public
national database of toxic substance incidents2
National Database of Toxic Substance Incidents
  • Use for:
    • Coordination among federal agencies
    • Situational awareness
    • Alerts of hazardous situations
    • Trending and planning
    • Access by public for information
slide23
Assessment of Chlorine Exposure and Health Consequences Following Graniteville Train Derailment
timeline day 1
Timeline: Day 1
  • 2:40 am Train derailment
  • 3:00 am First patients arrive at hospital
  • 6:42 am Reverse 911 call to community
  • 12:00 pm Emergency declaration
  • 4:20 pm Evacuation order

(~5400 people evacuated)

objectives
Objectives
  • Extent and location of exposure
  • Morbidity
  • Use of health services
  • Risk factors for severe outcomes
  • Persons at risk for long-term sequelae
case definition
Case Definition
  • Death or illness
  • Chlorine exposure
  • January 6 – February 17, 2005
  • Area of Graniteville, SC
case finding
Case Finding
  • Review of hospital emergency department logs
  • Health advisory
  • Mandatory reporting by physicians
methods
Methods
  • Questionnaire
  • Level of chlorine exposure
    • Scale of 1 to 5
    • High exposure level = 4 or 5
    • Based on duration and proximity
  • Severe medical outcome
    • Death
    • Hospitalization 3+ nights
results
Total Cases

Deaths

Hospitalizations

Outpatients

605

9

72

525

Results
demographics
Demographics

36 (<1 – 85)

epidemic curve n 569 cases by day of presentation
1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

Epidemic Curve (n=569) Cases by Day of Presentation

280

260

ED Visit, Not Admitted

Admitted to Hospital

Deceased

100

Cases

80

60

40

20

0

Day(s) Since Accident

decontamination
Decontamination
  • Three sites
  • Four hospitals
  • Wet decontamination
  • 107 (38%) decontaminated
  • Secondary exposures
reported impact to pets
Reported Impact to Pets
  • Dogs: 7 died, 10 sick, 2 missing
  • Cats: 10 died, 1 missing
  • Fish: died in 2 aquariums and 1 pond
  • Rabbit: 1 sick
  • Rooster: 1 died
  • Frog: 1 died
  • Total: 132 pets with no visible effects /

22 died / 12 sick / 3 missing

limitations
Limitations
  • Unable to contact half of the patients for interview
  • Self report of symptoms
  • Legal concerns
conclusions
Conclusions
  • More than half of the patients treated within 24 hours went to hospitals in Georgia
  • Two-thirds of the patients treated within 24 hours arrived in privately owned vehicles
  • Patients often not decontaminated
  • Exposure classification predictive of severe outcome
recommendations
Recommendations
  • Improve emergency preparedness and response in
    • Facility-specific mass casualty plans to address symptomatic patients who arrive in privately owned vehicles
    • Regional mass casualty plans to include inter-state issues
impact of the assessment
Impact of the Assessment
  • Provide information for decision-making and policy development
  • Respond to the needs of those affected:
    • Referrals for medical care, counseling, and assistance of social worker
    • Referrals for decontamination of vehicles
    • Free influenza vaccines
    • Information on the health impact of the incident
  • Obtain funding for future interventions
  • Add to the knowledge base to lessen impact of future incidents
acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
  • SC DHEC
  • Jerry Gibson
  • Dan Drociuk
  • Amy Belflower
  • Claire Youngblood
  • Erik Svendsen
  • Veleta Rudnick
  • Lena Bretous
  • David Whisenant
  • Shirley Jankelevich
  • Drew Gerald
  • CDC
  • David Van Sickle
  • Vuong Nguyen
  • Randolph Daley
  • Richard Taylor
  • David Callahan
  • ATSDR
  • Robin Lee
  • Kris Bisgard
  • Photographs by DHEC and Aiken County Emergency Management
  • Properties and effects of chlorine from lecture by Peter Chase, MD, PhD, University of Arizona
ad