...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Emergency Medicine >Lessons learned from reviewing a hospital’s disaster response to the hydrofluoric acid leak in Gumi city in 2012
【24h】

Lessons learned from reviewing a hospital’s disaster response to the hydrofluoric acid leak in Gumi city in 2012

机译:2012年审查医院灾害应对医院灾害泄漏的经验教训

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

This study analyzed the characteristics of hydrogen fluoride-exposed patients (HFEPs) treated in the emergency department (ED) of a local university hospital, and reviewed the hospital’s disaster response according to space, staff, supplies, and systems (4Ss). This retrospective observational chart review and descriptive study included 199 HFEPs among 2588 total ED patients who visited a local university emergency medical center for treatment between September 27, 2012 and October 20, 2012, following a hydrofluoric acid leak at the Hube Globe factory in Gumi City, Republic of Korea. Descriptive results concerning the 4Ss were obtained by interviewing ED specialist staff physicians on duty during the study period. In accordance with American Burn Association criteria, patients requiring burn center referral were assigned to the major burn group (MBG) as severe condition. During the acute phase (within 8?h after leak initiation), there were 43 patients in the ED, which was staffed with 3 doctors and 3 nurses, without 4S resources. Of these 43 patients, there were 8 HFEPs (100%) in the MBG and 0 in the non-MBG (NMBG). During the subacute phase (24?h after the acute phase), there were 262 patients in the ED including 167 HFEPs, of whom 45 (26.95%) were in the MBG and 122 (73.05%) were in the NMBG. The ED was then staffed with 6 doctors (3 on day shift and 3 on night shift) and 10 nurses (3 on day shift, 4 on evening shift, and 3 on night shift), and no 4S resources were available. Throughout the study period, no 4Ss were available. First, there was no expansion of ED space or secured disaster reserve beds. Second, there was no increase in manpower with duty time adjustments or duty relocation for ED working personnel. Third, there was no logistics reinforcement (e.g., antidote or personal protective equipment). Fourth, there were no disaster-related measures for the administration department, decontamination zone setup, safety diagnostic testing, or designated disaster triage implementation. The hospital’s disaster response was insufficient for all aspects of the 4Ss. Detailed guidance concerning a hospital disaster management plan is required.
机译:本研究分析了在当地大学医院的急诊部(ED)治疗的氟化氢暴露患者(HFEP)的特征,并根据空间,员工,用品和系统(4SS)审查了医院的灾害响应。这种回顾性的观察图表审查和描述性研究包括19988次HFeps,在2012年9月27日和2012年9月20日至10月20日之间访问了当地大学急救医疗中心的2588名患者中,在Gumi City的Hube Globe Factory泄漏后氢氟酸泄漏, 大韩民国。关于4SS的描述性结果是通过在学习期间采访的ED专业人员医生在职责。根据美国燃烧结社标准,需要烧伤中心转诊的患者被分配给主要烧伤组(MBG)作为严重状况。在急性期(在泄漏后8℃内),ED中有43名患者,其中有3名医生和3名护士,没有4S资源。在这43名患者中,MBG中有8 hFeps(100%),非MBG(NMBG)中有0。在亚急期阶段(24μl急性期后),在ed中有262名患者,其中包括167次HFeps,其中45%(26.95%)在MBG中,122例(73.05%)在NMBG中。然后,ED有6名医生(3日轮班和3夜班3),10名护士(第3次班次,晚上6次,夜班3次),没有4S资源。在整个研究期间,没有4SS。首先,没有ED空间或可靠的灾害储备床的扩展。其次,人力人员没有增加工作人员的税务时间调整或责任搬迁。第三,没有物流强化(例如,解毒剂或个人防护装备)。第四,行政部门没有与灾害有关的措施,净化区设置,安全诊断检测或指定的灾区实施。 4SS的各个方面,医院的灾害响应不足。需要有关医院灾害管理计划的详细指导。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号