Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNe) events

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Emergency Services Pub Date : 2019-05-30 DOI:10.1108/ijes-05-2018-0030
S. Hignett, G. Hancox, M. Otter
{"title":"Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNe) events","authors":"S. Hignett, G. Hancox, M. Otter","doi":"10.1108/ijes-05-2018-0030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to systematically review published literature for the research question “what issues are considered (and changes made) for vulnerable groups as part of the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive (CBRNe) response for casualty collection, decontamination, triage and casualty clearing processes?”.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nSeven-stage framework from the PRISMA statement for research question, eligibility (definition), search, identification of relevant papers from title and abstract, selection and retrieval of papers, appraisal and synthesis. Data sources: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus (Elsevier), Chemical Abstracts, Assia (Proquest), Sociological abstracts (Proquest), Cinahl, HMIC, Health business elite, PsycInfo (ebsco), PILOTS (Proquest) and supplemented by other search strategies (e.g. exploding reference lists). The included references were critically appraised using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT).\n\n\nFindings\nResults: 1,855 papers were returned from the literature search, of which 221 were screened by abstract and 48 by full paper. In total, 11 papers were included for appraisal, of which three achieved a quality score of 50 per cent or over. The papers were categorised into three phases on CBRNe response; evacuation, triage and decontamination.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe limitations of the search process included the use of emerging exclusion criteria. This may have excluded research that would provide more information in some topic areas but it was felt necessary to set a high publication standard for inclusion to generate trustworthy results and recommendations. The MMAT appraisal tool has been validated for different study types and provided a useful categorisation approach for critical appraisal, albeit resulting in only three included studies. Future reviews could include papers published in a wider range of languages to include research from non-English sources.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThese evidence-based results should be used by practitioners to review current operational policies for vulnerable people and plan future improvements. Evacuation accessibility can be described as characteristics for exit, route and obstacles. This takes a systems approach to consider how building planning and layout can have implications for safety critical but low frequency events. Decontamination recommendations include: at least one additional re-robe section per mass decontamination unit and adaptations to the decontamination plan including accessible equipment for non-ambulatory individuals; and additional (specialist) staff in the decontamination team (sign language, interpreters and physical therapists).\n\n\nOriginality/value\nAlthough very little new medium/high quality research is available, the findings are summarised as considerations for building design (route choice and information), communication (including vision, hearing and language differences) and the composition of the response team. It is suggested that evidence-based practice from other care domains could be considered (patient movement and handling) for fire service and ambulance guidelines.\n","PeriodicalId":44087,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Emergency Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/ijes-05-2018-0030","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Emergency Services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijes-05-2018-0030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to systematically review published literature for the research question “what issues are considered (and changes made) for vulnerable groups as part of the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive (CBRNe) response for casualty collection, decontamination, triage and casualty clearing processes?”. Design/methodology/approach Seven-stage framework from the PRISMA statement for research question, eligibility (definition), search, identification of relevant papers from title and abstract, selection and retrieval of papers, appraisal and synthesis. Data sources: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus (Elsevier), Chemical Abstracts, Assia (Proquest), Sociological abstracts (Proquest), Cinahl, HMIC, Health business elite, PsycInfo (ebsco), PILOTS (Proquest) and supplemented by other search strategies (e.g. exploding reference lists). The included references were critically appraised using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). Findings Results: 1,855 papers were returned from the literature search, of which 221 were screened by abstract and 48 by full paper. In total, 11 papers were included for appraisal, of which three achieved a quality score of 50 per cent or over. The papers were categorised into three phases on CBRNe response; evacuation, triage and decontamination. Research limitations/implications The limitations of the search process included the use of emerging exclusion criteria. This may have excluded research that would provide more information in some topic areas but it was felt necessary to set a high publication standard for inclusion to generate trustworthy results and recommendations. The MMAT appraisal tool has been validated for different study types and provided a useful categorisation approach for critical appraisal, albeit resulting in only three included studies. Future reviews could include papers published in a wider range of languages to include research from non-English sources. Practical implications These evidence-based results should be used by practitioners to review current operational policies for vulnerable people and plan future improvements. Evacuation accessibility can be described as characteristics for exit, route and obstacles. This takes a systems approach to consider how building planning and layout can have implications for safety critical but low frequency events. Decontamination recommendations include: at least one additional re-robe section per mass decontamination unit and adaptations to the decontamination plan including accessible equipment for non-ambulatory individuals; and additional (specialist) staff in the decontamination team (sign language, interpreters and physical therapists). Originality/value Although very little new medium/high quality research is available, the findings are summarised as considerations for building design (route choice and information), communication (including vision, hearing and language differences) and the composition of the response team. It is suggested that evidence-based practice from other care domains could be considered (patient movement and handling) for fire service and ambulance guidelines.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
化学、生物、放射性、核爆炸事件
本文的目的是系统地回顾已发表的文献,以研究问题“作为化学、生物、放射、核或爆炸(CBRNe)应对伤亡收集、净化、分类和伤亡清理过程的一部分,为弱势群体考虑了哪些问题(并做出了哪些改变)?”设计/方法/方法PRISMA声明中的七个阶段框架:研究问题、资格(定义)、搜索、从标题和摘要中识别相关论文、论文的选择和检索、评估和综合。数据来源:Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus (Elsevier), Chemical Abstracts, Assia (Proquest), Sociological Abstracts (Proquest), Cinahl, HMIC, Health business elite, PsycInfo (ebsco), PILOTS (Proquest),并辅以其他搜索策略(如爆炸参考文献列表)。使用混合方法评价工具(MMAT)对纳入的参考文献进行批判性评价。结果:共检索到文献1855篇,其中摘要筛选221篇,全文筛选48篇。共有11篇论文被纳入评估,其中3篇论文的质量得分达到50%或以上。根据CBRNe的反应,论文被分为三个阶段;疏散,分类和消毒。研究的局限性/意义搜索过程的局限性包括使用新出现的排除标准。这可能排除了在某些专题领域提供更多信息的研究,但认为有必要为纳入设定较高的出版标准,以产生值得信赖的结果和建议。MMAT评估工具已在不同的研究类型中得到验证,并为关键评估提供了有用的分类方法,尽管只有三个纳入的研究。未来的评论可能包括以更广泛的语言发表的论文,以包括来自非英语来源的研究。实践意义这些基于证据的结果应该被从业者用来审查当前针对弱势群体的操作政策,并计划未来的改进。疏散可达性可描述为出口、路线和障碍物的特征。这需要一种系统的方法来考虑建筑规划和布局如何对安全关键但频率较低的事件产生影响。去污建议包括:每个大规模去污装置至少增加一个换洗衣区,并对去污计划进行调整,包括为非流动人员提供无障碍设备;以及净化小组的额外(专家)工作人员(手语、翻译和物理治疗师)。独创性/价值虽然很少有新的中等/高质量的研究,但研究结果总结为建筑物设计(路线选择和信息),沟通(包括视觉,听觉和语言差异)和响应小组的组成考虑因素。建议可以考虑其他护理领域的循证实践(患者运动和处理)作为消防服务和救护车指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Emergency Services
International Journal of Emergency Services SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of Australian paramedics following the introduction of professional regulation: a qualitative exploration Optimization of new fire department location using an improved GIS algorithm for firefighters travel time estimation The adoption of evidence-based policing: the pivotal role of first-line police leaders across England and Wales The impacts of leadership behaviours on the mental well-being of public safety communicators Towards disaster prevention in community centers: development of a code-based fire risk assessment tool
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1