Mary Ellen Jafari, MS, DABR
Radiation Safety Officer
Gundersen Lutheran Health System
La Crosse, Wisconsin

The design and implementation of a radiological incident response plan at a community hospital is described.
This project demonstrated that the Wisconsin
State Expert Panel report, The Management of
Patients in a Radiological Incident , provides a flexible template that can be implemented at community hospitals using existing staff for an approximate cost of $25,000.
2

•
Motivation & Introduction
•
Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (HVA)
•
Evaluation of Existing Capability
•
Equipment Purchase
•
Response Plan
•
Training
•
Testing
•
Staffing/Workload Implications
•
Conclusions
3

•
How would your hospital respond to an emergency involving radiation?
•
Would you know if a patient in your ER was contaminated with radioactivity?
•
Could you provide lifesaving patient care and also keep your staff and facility safe?
4

Like this? Or like this?
5

6

•
The potential for an incident involving injured patients and radioactive materials is growing due to:
 industrial and medical use of radioisotopes
 worldwide increase in terrorist activities
 renewed interest in nuclear energy
7

Individuals involved in such incidents may be contaminated with radioactive materials and, if injured, will require emergency medical treatment.
D. Morse, Armed Forces Radiobiology
Research Institute (AFRRI)
8

•
First responders transporting patients may not know that the incident involved radiation.
•
Contaminated patients may self present for medical care.
•
Without independent radiation detection capability, a hospital emergency center won’t necessarily know if a radiation hazard exists.
9

A Radiological Incident Response plan that includes the following:
 technical capabilities to detect, measure, and identify sources of radiation
 procedures for staff to follow
10

11

Nov 2007: Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Hospital Disaster Preparedness Program State
Expert Panel on Radiation Emergencies issued their report:

The Management of Patients in a
Radiological Incident. Generic template intended to be tailored to the specific management structure and infrastructure at each facility where it is implemented
12

Topics Covered in State
Expert Panel Report
•
Notification & Verification of Radiation Accident
•
Preparing for Patient Arrival
•
Patient Arrival and Triage
•
Patient Assessment & Treatment of Contaminated
Patients
•
Decontamination (External & Internal)
•
Transfer of Patient from Emergency Department
•
Doffing of Personal Protective Equipment
Appendices cover Training/Education, Nuclear Radiation, Radiation
Injury, Detection of Radiation, Personnel Monitoring, Radiological &
Lab Assessments, Treatment for Internal Contaminants, and more.
13

•
The Division of Public Health solicited applications from hospitals to conduct a demonstration project implementing the recommendations of that report.
•
Gundersen Lutheran Health System was selected.
14

Headquartered in
La Crosse, WI
Serves patients throughout 19 counties in western
Wisconsin, northeastern Iowa, and southeastern
Minnesota
15

Level II Trauma and Emergency
Center serves over 30,000 patients/yr
18-bed unit staffed by 11 emergency medicine physicians and 70 nurses, EMTs, paramedics, and other personnel
16

HAZARD VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS
(HVA)
17

Our first step was to conduct a Hazard
Vulnerability Analysis
Purpose of HVA: identify factors that could increase the risk of a radiological incident in the region
18

• location on a major interstate highway;
• proximity to a nuclear reactor currently being decommissioned
• proximity to U.S. Army’s Fort McCoy
• radioactive material use at local hospitals, universities, industrial facilities, and government facilities
Potential radiological incidents related to these factors include transportation accidents, worker injuries, and terrorist actions.
19

EVALUATION OF EXISTING SPACE AND
EQUIPMENT
20

An evaluation of the existing space and equipment was conducted in collaboration with outside experts in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) response
21

Exchange program conducted with Frimley Park
Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in the United
Kingdom.

Similar to Gundersen Lutheran in size, proximity to major transportation routes, and proximity to a large military base

Frimley Park staff travelled to La Crosse in
Nov 2008 for a weeklong evaluation
22

23

•
Frimley Park team met with staff from:
TEC
Security
Safety
Imaging
Emergency Medical Services
Radiation Safety
Telecommunications
Infection Control
•
Evaluated:
 patient flow


 existing Decontamination Room and Equipment future needs setup/deconstruction of portable Decon Tent
24

•
Recommended designation of separate pathways and entrances for contaminated and non-contaminated ambulances and patients
•
Additional recommendations were related to deficiencies of existing Decontamination Room
•
For each deficiency, a corrective action was recommended
25

26

•
Walls/ceiling vulnerable to water penetration and contaminant adhesion
•
Concrete flooring (slippery)
•
No separate ventilation system
•
No drainage to a water collection tank
•
No storage space for equipment and Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE)
•
Equipment not readily available
27

•
Recommendations for patient flow and water collection tank implemented immediately
•
Recommendations regarding radiation detection and measurement equipment, PPE, and decontamination equipment implemented during project
•
All recommendations integrated into planning for construction of a new Critical Care Hospital
28

•
Final recommendation from Frimley Park
Hospital team was to use of Job Action Cards into our response plan
•
Concise, simple direction card for each person.
Allows each person to quickly understand their role/tasks in an emergency situation
•
Provided templates of cards used at Frimley
Park Hospital
29

EQUIPMENT SELECTION AND
PURCHASE
30

Grant for project used to purchase radiation detection and measurement equipment:
 radiation detection system for TEC entrance
 portable instrument for radioisotope identification
 survey meters
 electronic dosimeters for staff
31

An entrance monitor is necessary to detect the presence of a radiation hazard.
•
Key features for selecting a monitor:
 high sensitivity
 rapid response time
32

Ludlum Measurements, Inc., Model 375-10 wallmounted area monitor with a sodium iodide scintillation detector, $2189 each
 two alarm levels
 3 seconds response time
 AC power with 12 hr battery backup
 audible alarm, can also have strobe light and horn
33

•
Wall mounted
•
Continuous digital readout
•
Optional environmental box for outdoor use
34

Purchased and installed two monitors (total cost $4378)
35

• Didn’t want monitors alarming from diagnostic
Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Oncology seed implant patients who are not a hazard
•
TEC physicians and staff felt alarms from these patients would cause them to disregard or turn off systems
•
Nice feature with Ludlum 375-10 system is that
Ludlum can calibrate it to not trigger for low energy medical radioisotopes 36

Radioisotopes excluded from detection:
Tc-99m, Tl-201, In-111, P-103, I-123 and I-125
Examples of radioisotopes above the threshold which will be detected:
I-131, Cs-137, Co-60, Ba-133, F-18, Ga-67, Mo-99
Verified on-site
37

In addition to detecting the presence of radiation, it is important to identify the radioisotope.
Different radioisotopes have different characteristics such as energy and half-life.
Need to know what you are dealing with to appropriately treat patients and protect staff.
38

•
Key features for selecting a radioisotope identifier:
 accuracy
 rapid response time
 portability
 ease of use
39

Berkeley Nucleonics Model 940-2-G SAM
Defender with a sodium iodide detector, $10038, including 3 yr calibration, maintenance, upgrade, and training program
 energy range of 18 keV to 3 MeV
 electronic isotope library
 can transfer data to a PC through a CompactFlash card, Ethernet, or USB adapter
40

Berkeley Nucleonics Model
940-2-G SAM Defender
• AC power or “AA” cell batteries with 6 hr life
• weight 4.5 lbs
41

Survey meters are lightweight, portable devices used to detect the presence, location, and level of radioactive contamination on patients
Also used to monitor staff, equipment, and facility for contamination acquired during patient care and decontamination
42

•
Key factors for selection of survey meters
 high sensitivity
 ruggedness
 ease of use
43

•
Ludlum Measurements, Inc., Model 3 Survey
Meter with Model 44-9 Pancake Geiger-Mueller
Detector, $710 each


4 second response time in Fast mode
Power is supplied by two “D” cell batteries with a typical battery life of 2,000 hours

3.5 lbs
 equipped with optional 1 uCi Cs-137 check source
44

Ludlum Model 3 Survey Meter with Model 44-9 Pancake Geiger-
Mueller Detector
•
Six meters were purchased for use in the TEC, and one additional meter was purchased for the
Gundersen Lutheran MedLink AIR helicopter
(total cost $4970)
45

Need to assess radiation dose received by staff during patient care and decontamination.
Key features for selecting staff monitoring devices
 real-time dose display
 accuracy
 ruggedness
46

Global Dosimetry Solutions Model DMC 2000S
Electronic Dosimeter with silicon diode detector,
$550 each
 digital display of dose (0.1 - 1,000 mrem) and dose rate ( 0.1 - 1,000 mrem/yr)
 energy range 50 keV to 6 MeV
 battery powered, typical battery life of 2,000 hrs
 weight 2.0 oz
47

Global Dosimetry Solutions
Model DMC 2000S Electronic
Dosimeter
•
Six dosimeters were purchased to augment two units already present at the facility (total cost $3300)
•
Size is similar to that of a pager. Attaches to clothing with detachable clip
48

Initial equipment costs
49

Recurring equipment costs
50

RESPONSE PLAN
51

•
Template used was the State Expert Panel on
Radiation Emergencies report
• Had to customize template for our organization’s specific management structure and infrastructure
52

•
A core group of individuals was selected to develop the radiological incident response plan:

Radiation Safety Officer

Hospital Safety Officer

Physician Chair of Emergency Medicine Dept

Managers for TEC, Emergency Medical
Services, Security, Facility Operations
53

•
Initial Core Group meeting:
 define project objectives
 set timeline
 determine roles for Job Action Cards
54

•
Draft plan written. Job Action
Card made for each role.
•
Not difficult since State
Experts Plan already had procedures for personnel to follow
•
Just needed to determine who at our facility would fill each role
No need to reinvent the wheel
Photo: creativecranes.com
55

Job Action Card was created for each role.
Incident Command System
Incorporated
Number of roles could be reduced for smaller facilities.
56

•
Concise
•
Large font
•
Brightly colored
•
Laminated
57

•
Core group reviewed the draft plan and assessed it with a tabletop exercise.
•
Followed steps on the Job Action Cards to respond to a hypothetical radiological incident
•
Improvements were made to draft plan after feedback on workflow and responsibilities
58

In addition to the Job Action Cards, we included the following materials into the plan:

REAC/TS flowchart

CDC Fact Sheet for Physicians on Acute Radiation
Syndrome (ARS)

Info sheet on treatments for internal contamination

Radiological Incident FAQ sheet

Survey meter instruction card

Poster showing how to put on PPE
59

REAC/TS Patient
Treatment Flowchart
•
Flowchart from the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and
Education (ORISE) Radiation Emergency Assistance
Center/Training Site (REAC/TS)
•
Shows decision-making steps, decontamination procedures, and treatment of patients involved in a radiological incident and is available on the REAC/TS
Website
• http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/combined-injury.htm
60

REAC/TS Patient
Treatment Flowchart
•
Colorful and easy to read
•
Matches State Expert
Panel recommendations
•
Multiple copies printed on 24” x 36” foam board
61

ARS Fact Sheet for
Physicians
•
CDC Fact Sheet for Physicians on Acute
Radiation Syndrome (ARS) describes the three classic acute radiation syndromes and cutaneous injury
•
Includes tests for estimating radiation dose, and instructions for triage and patient management.
•
Available at CDC Radiation Emergency website
62

Treatment for Internal
Contaminants
•
Patients involved in a radiological incident may have external contamination, internal contamination, or both.
•
Blocking and decorporation agents may reduce internal uptake of radioactive materials or increase their rate of excretion.
•
Table 2, App 7, of State Expert Panel report
63

Treatment for Internal
Contaminants
64

Radiological Incident
FAQ Sheet
•
Patients, family members, and the media have concerns and questions during a radiological incident.
•
FAQ list (App 10 of the State Expert Panel report) was modified for use at Gundersen
Lutheran Health System
 Revised comply with organizational policies on patient education and staff communication with the media.
65

66

A concise instruction sheet for use of the survey meters was developed based on
App 6 to the State Expert
Panel report.
Laminated and attached to each survey meter.
67

Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE)
Donning Poster
Copies printed on
24” x 36” foam board
68

ADDITIONAL TOOLS/SUPPLIES
69

•
Three ring binder containing:

Contact info for Radiation Safety
Staff

Job Action Cards

Radiological Incident Plan and Associated Documents
•
Copies kept at:

TEC nurse’s station

Security office

Radiation Safety office
70

Plastic storage containers that could be easily lifted and moved were used to store equipment and
PPE right in
Decontamination room.
Subsequently obtained wheeled storage unit to hold all containers. Easy to move out when Decon Rm needed.
71

TRAINING
72

Key factors for selecting training materials and methods:
 cost

 time required ease of use in an emergency situation (“just in time” training)
73

•
The 17-minute CDC video Radiological Terrorism: Justin-Time Training for Hospital Clinicians , was the primary training tool.
•
Intended for medical staff but found to be applicable to non-medical staff too.
•
Feedback indicated video made staff more comfortable with providing care to a contaminated patient and reduced their fear of radiation and radiation effects.
74

•
Staff also received training on the specific steps and actions in our Radiological Incident
Response Plan.
•
Hands-on training provided to TEC staff in use of radiation survey meters and response if the alarms trigger on the area monitors at the TEC entrances.
•
Annual refresher training and updates done via intranet course and in-person inservices.
75

TESTING
76

•
Three exercises were performed to test the
Radiological Incident Response Plan.
 each exercise tested different parts of the plan.
 drill observer recorded observations and recommendations during exercise
 drill photographer

Post-drill recommendations implemented and retested in next exercise
77

Exercise 1: U.S. Army
Operation Red Dragon
2009
•
Operation Red Dragon conducted by U.S. Army
Reserve personnel.
• Focused on the military’s ability to deploy Army
Reserve chemical assets in a CBRN response environment in coordination with local community agencies and hospitals.
78

Terrorist group detonates improvised explosive device – shaped charge on a pressurized container aboard a barge near the La Crosse festival site, releasing anhydrous ammonia during a major morning concert and festival.
Terrorist group then targets the victims and the emergency responder community by releasing a radiologic agent from a nearby bridge.
Potential 28484 exposures, 1208 untreated fatalities, and
1342 total casualties, overwhelming medical and public health authorities and decimating emergency responders.
79

Operation Red Dragon
80

81

Exercise 2:
Radiopharmaceutical courier transportation accident
•
Scenario: A courier vehicle delivering nuclear medicine isotopes to area hospitals plunges over an embankment on the interstate highway.
• First responders observe the “Caution – Radioactive
Materials” signs on crushed and wet packages. Notify
TEC they will arrive in 30 min with one non-ambulatory patient with a fractured arm who may be contaminated with radioactive materials.
•
Limited drill. Ended when simulated patient brought into
Decontamination Room.
82

Radiopharmaceutical courier transportation accident
83

84

131
•
Scenario: Patient receives 100 mCi radioactive 131 I for treatment of thyroid carcinoma at another regional hospital.
•
An hour later, while returning home by car she develops a severe headache, nausea, and vomiting. Her husband pulls the car over and calls 9-1-1. First responders arrive.
•
Patient loses consciousness on the way to the hospital and is taken directly to a treatment room. Police officer from the scene is unaware that he is contaminated with
131 I and triggers the TEC entrance radiation detector.
85

I-131 Patient Accident
86

87

STAFFING AND WORKLOAD
IMPLICATIONS
88

Staff were used in their existing job roles, and no additional personnel were required for this project.
Staff time was required to:
• develop the plan and associated documents
• train staff
• develop and participate in the three exercises
89

•
Concise training methods resulted in 1-4 hour training time for each participating TEC staff member including exercises
•
The most significant time burden was that of the facility’s Radiation Safety staff. 80-100 total hrs
90

CONCLUSIONS
91

•
A plan champion (the Radiation Safety Officer) and the core group of individuals who took responsibility for developing and implementing the plan were critical to the success of this project.
•
Incorporating use of the ICS provided sufficient flexibility to adapt to any size of radiological emergency
92

•
Combination of video training, hands-on training, and practicing actions in exercises was an effective system of education for individuals with differing learning styles.
•
Clear, concise Job Action Cards received very positive feedback from staff.
93

•
Limitations in Gundersen Lutheran Health
System’s existing decontamination facilities were a challenge.
•
The lesson learned from this challenge is that hazardous materials incident response should be incorporated into planning new construction
94

•
Conducting exercises was challenging because an ER is busy with real patients.
•
Consulting with emergency center staff to determine the best time to conduct a drill was useful.
•
Conducting limited exercises to test specific parts of the plan was better for ER staff than a 3-
4 hr full drill
95
.

•
Successfully demonstrated that the Wisconsin State
Expert Panel on Radiation Emergencies report entitled
The Management of Patients in a Radiological Incident issued in November 2007 provides a flexible template that can be customized to fit the needs of individual healthcare organizations.
•
Cost of implementation was approximately $25,000, not including staff time
•
Readiness for appropriate response to an actual radiological incident was substantially improved.
96

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
97

For Further Information
•
Copies of the Radiological Incident Response
Plan, Job Action Cards, and associated documents developed for this project an be obtained from:
Mary Ellen Jafari, MS, DABR, Radiation Safety Officer
Gundersen Lutheran Health System
1900 South Ave. Mail Stop C02-002
La Crosse, WI 54601 mejafari@gundluth.org
608-775-2933
98

For Further Information
Jafari, ME. Radiological
Incident Preparedness for
Community Hospitals: A
Demonstration Project.
Health Phys. 99
(Supplement 2): S123-
S135; 2010
99

Additional Resources
US Dept of Health and Human Services
Radiation Emergency and Medical Management website http://www.remm.nlm.gov/index.html
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE)
Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site
(REAC/TS) http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Radiation Emergencies website http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/
100