Presentation on theme: "Chempack Deployment Exercise- June 12, 2014 Southeastern Idaho Public Health Nicholas Scarborough, Planner 208-239-5288"— Presentation transcript:
Chempack Deployment Exercise- June 12, 2014 Southeastern Idaho Public Health Nicholas Scarborough, Planner 208-239-5288 firstname.lastname@example.org
Objective 1: Exercise communications between Incident Commander, StateComm, IDHW, and SIPH. Objective 2: Exercise the ability to surge medical resources to meet demand when local sources are over-whelmed. Objective 3: Exercise the ability to approve the deployment of the ChemPack in a timely manner, and deliver the ChemPack within 60 minutes of request. Scenario: During an agricultural trade show at Idaho State University’s Holt Arena, an accident compromised a pesticide container which exposed multiple attendees to organophosphate pesticide. Numerous people are displaying neurological and respiratory symptoms. Summary: This exercise began at 3 pm MST with a pre-scheduled call to StateComm. The StateComm Bridge call began at 3:15 pm. StateComm followed their procedures resulting in a bridge call and authorization for ChemPack deployment. PMC followed their procedures and delivered the simulated materials to the exercise site 25 min 2 sec after the bridge call ended. The event officially ended on June 12, 2014 at 3:50 pm.
1.All participants were accessible via the expected communications methods and they knew their roles in the process. 2.ISU provided on-site security. 3.Mock ChemPack materials were successfully delivered to the designated site. 4.ChemPack release was authorized within 25 minutes of the initial IC request. ChemPack materials were delivered within 45 minutes of the initial IC request. Well within the 60 minute goal. 5.No accidents, injuries, or other incidents occurred.
1.Specific, quantifiable thresholds will clarify the authorization process. 2.All plans need clearer explanation of who is expected to answer the ChemPack Release Criteria questions (the requesting IC or someone else on the Bridge call). 3.When releasing ChemPack materials, there needs to be clear communication about what is to be sent, specifically how much of each item (# of doses vs. the whole crate) and from which crate (hospital administered vs. EMS administered). 4.Contact information for the receiving individual must be given to the hospital when authorizing ChemPack release. 5.The Chain of Custody form needs to document the host pharmacies’ removal of ChemPack material from containers, transfer to couriers, and the transfer from couriers to the requesting Incident Commander. 6.Guidance needs to clarify who maintains the documentation (host hospital, courier, IC, IDHW?).
Communications were disjointed and can be streamlined. Future deployments can benefit from: clearer release criteria and authorities, specific codified questions to be asked of the IC, specific codified information to be given to the hospitals and couriers, updated chain of custody forms, shortened authorization time.