Building Connecticut's clinical biodosimetry laboratory surge capacity to mitigate the health consequences of radiological and nuclear disasters: A collaborative approach between the state biodosimetry laboratory and Connecticut's medical infrastructure

Albanese, Joseph; Martens, Kelly; Arnold, Jeffrey L.; Kelley, Katherine A.; Kristie, Virginia; Forte, Elaine Cristina Novatzki; Schneider, Mark; Dainiak, Nicholas

doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2007.05.002

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…State-wide hospital plans have been developed for addressing radiologic emergencies for states, including Connecticut (Dainiak et al 2006), California (Bushberg 2007), and New York (DOHMH 2007). Mass casualty disaster drills involving radiologic materials are being planned and conducted at increasing frequency (Schleipman et al 2004;Albanese et al 2007;Wilkinson et al 2007). Surge capacity for biodosimetry laboratories has been recently addressed as well (Albanese et al 2007;Wilkinson et al 2007).…”

Section: Local and State Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mass casualty disaster drills involving radiologic materials are being planned and conducted at increasing frequency (Schleipman et al 2004;Albanese et al 2007;Wilkinson et al 2007). Surge capacity for biodosimetry laboratories has been recently addressed as well (Albanese et al 2007;Wilkinson et al 2007). sibilities of different categories of healthcare professionals involved in the response, protection of healthcare providers, identification and classification of victims, and early management of individuals who have had or might have had a radiologic exposure (Dainiak et al 2006).…”

Section: Local and State Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Local, Regional and National Responses for Medical Management of a Radiological/Nuclear Incident

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ᮀ Radiological and nuclear devices may be used by terrorists or may be the source of accidental exposure. A tiered approach has been recommended for response to a terrorist event wherein local, regional, state and federal assets become involved sequentially, as the magnitude in severity of the incident increases. State-wide hospital plans have been developed and published for Connecticut, New York and California. These plans address delineation of responsibilities of various categories of health professionals, protection of healthcare providers, identification and classification of individuals who might have been exposed to and/or contaminated by radiation and, in the case of Connecticut response plan, early management of victims. Regional response programs such as the New England Regional Health Compact (consisting of 6 member states) have been developed to manage consequences of radiation injury. The Department of Homeland Security is ultimately responsible for managing both health consequences and the crisis. Multiple US national response assets may be called upon for use in radiological incidents. These include agencies and programs that have been developed by the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Defense. Coordination of national, regional and state assets with local response efforts is necessary to provide a timely and efficient response.

show abstract

Section: Local and State Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Local and State Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Local, Regional and National Responses for Medical Management of a Radiological/Nuclear Incident

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are currently only a few laboratories in the world with the capability of assaying multiple samples. While considerable effort has been made to establish networks among these laboratories and to establish additional laboratories (Albanese et al 2007; Prasanna et al 2005; Carr and Christie 2010), the total available capacity to process samples remains quite low. Besides the concern for insufficient capacity to manage large populations, the logistical complexities of transporting samples and then matching the results to the appropriate individuals would also be significant in a major event.…”

Section: Limitations Of Current Guidelines For Response To Large Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Assessment of Biodosimetry Methods for Large-Scale Incidents

Swartz

Flood²,

Gougelet³

et al. 2010

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition is growing regarding the possibility that terrorism or large-scale accidents could result in potential radiation exposure of hundreds of thousands of people and that the present guidelines for evaluation after such an event are seriously deficient. Therefore, there is a great and urgent need for after-the-fact biodosimetric methods to estimate radiation dose. To accomplish this goal, the dose estimates must be at the individual level, timely, accurate, and plausibly obtained in large-scale disasters. This paper evaluates current biodosimetry methods, focusing on their strengths and weaknesses in estimating human radiation exposure in large-scale disasters at three stages. First, the authors evaluate biodosimetry’s ability to determine which individuals did not receive a significant exposure so they can be removed from the acute response system. Second, biodosimetry’s capacity to classify those initially assessed as needing further evaluation into treatment-level categories is assessed. Third, we review biodosimetry’s ability to guide treatment, both short- and long-term, is reviewed. The authors compare biodosimetric methods that are based on physical vs. biological parameters and evaluate the features of current dosimeters (capacity, speed and ease of getting information, and accuracy) to determine which are most useful in meeting patients’ needs at each of the different stages. Results indicate that the biodosimetry methods differ in their applicability to the three different stages, and that combining physical and biological techniques may sometimes be most effective. In conclusion, biodosimetry techniques have different properties, and knowledge of their properties for meeting the different needs for different stages will result in their most effective use in a nuclear disaster mass-casualty event.

show abstract

“…Additionally, there are efforts to develop capacity in routine laboratories for dicentrics biodosimetry capabilities to be used during a radiation emergency. 13…”

Section: Chromosomal Dicentricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Possible Approach to Large-Scale Laboratory Testing for Acute Radiation Sickness after a Nuclear Detonation

Adalja

Watson

Wollner

et al. 2011

Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, an

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the detonation of an improvised nuclear device, several key actions will be necessary to save the greatest number of lives possible. Among these tasks, the identification of patients with impending acute radiation sickness is a critical problem that so far has lacked a clear solution in national planning. We present one possible solution: the formation of a public-private partnership to augment the capacity to identify those at risk for acute radiation sickness.

show abstract

Building Connecticut's clinical biodosimetry laboratory surge capacity to mitigate the health consequences of radiological and nuclear disasters: A collaborative approach between the state biodosimetry laboratory and Connecticut's medical infrastructure

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

Local, Regional and National Responses for Medical Management of a Radiological/Nuclear Incident

Local, Regional and National Responses for Medical Management of a Radiological/Nuclear Incident

A Critical Assessment of Biodosimetry Methods for Large-Scale Incidents

A Possible Approach to Large-Scale Laboratory Testing for Acute Radiation Sickness after a Nuclear Detonation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About