The Experts below are selected from a list of 25944 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Lauren Lewis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Transportation-related hazardous materials incidents and the role of poison control centers.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2010Co-Authors: Mark E Sutter, James Lando, Joshua G Schier, Arthur Chang, Michael D. Schwartz, D. Adam Algren, Lauren LewisAbstract:BACKGROUND: Department of Transportation (DOT) mandates reporting of all serious hazardous materials incidents. Hazardous material exposures may result in secondary contamination of emergency departments, or delayed clinical effects. Poison control centers specialize in the management of Patients exposed to toxic substances; however, poison control center notification is not required. PURPOSE: The objective is to determine the frequency of poison control center notification after serious hazardous materials incidents when Patients were Transported to a hospital. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of serious hazardous materials incidents as reported by DOT, matched with data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers from 2002 through 2006 that involved Patient Transport. Incidents were divided into four groups: those reported to a poison control center within 0-360 minutes of the incident; those reported within 361-1440 minutes of the incident; those reported within 1441-4320 minutes of the incident; and no poison control center notification. Analyses were performed on variables including date, time, substance, and time to notification. Data were received in January 2008. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four serious incidents met inclusion criteria. One hundred thirty-four incidents (87%) occurred without poison control center notification. Poison control centers were notified in 20 incidents (12.9%); 15 incidents (9.7%) were reported within 0-360 minutes of the incident (M=115 minutes, range=5-359 minutes); four incidents (2.6%) were reported within 361-1440 minutes of the incident (M=652 minutes, range=566-750 minutes); and one incident (0.7%) was reported after 4320 minutes following the incident. CONCLUSIONS: Most serious hazardous materials incidents involving Patient Transport are not reported to poison control centers. Opportunities exist to increase utilization of poison control center resources without increasing financial burdens of the hazardous materials incident.
-
Transportation-related hazardous materials incidents and the role of poison control centers.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2010Co-Authors: Mark E Sutter, James Lando, Joshua G Schier, Arthur Chang, Michael D. Schwartz, D. Adam Algren, Lauren LewisAbstract:BACKGROUND: Department of Transportation (DOT) mandates reporting of all serious hazardous materials incidents. Hazardous material exposures may result in secondary contamination of emergency departments, or delayed clinical effects. Poison control centers specialize in the management of Patients exposed to toxic substances; however, poison control center notification is not required. PURPOSE: The objective is to determine the frequency of poison control center notification after serious hazardous materials incidents when Patients were Transported to a hospital. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of serious hazardous materials incidents as reported by DOT, matched with data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers from 2002 through 2006 that involved Patient Transport. Incidents were divided into four groups: those reported to a poison control center within 0-360 minutes of the incident; those reported within 361-1440 minutes of the incident; those reported within 1441-4320 minutes of the incident; and no poison control center notification. Analyses were performed on variables including date, time, substance, and time to notification. Data were received in January 2008. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four serious incidents met inclusion criteria. One hundred thirty-four incidents (87%) occurred without poison control center notification. Poison control centers were notified in 20 incidents (12.9%); 15 incidents (9.7%) were reported within 0-360 minutes of the incident (M=115 minutes, range=5-359 minutes); four incidents (2.6%) were reported within 361-1440 minutes of the incident (M=652 minutes, range=566-750 minutes); and one incident (0.7%) was reported after 4320 minutes following the incident. CONCLUSIONS: Most serious hazardous materials incidents involving Patient Transport are not reported to poison control centers. Opportunities exist to increase utilization of poison control center resources without increasing financial burdens of the hazardous materials incident.
Knut Fredriksen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cabin temperature during prehospital Patient Transport – a prospective observational study
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 2020Co-Authors: Tuva Svendsen, Inger Lund-kordahl, Knut FredriksenAbstract:Background Few studies have investigated the Patient compartment temperatures during ambulance missions or its relation to admission hypothermia. Still hypothermia is a known risk factor for increased mortality and morbidity in both trauma and disease. This has special relevance to our sub-arctic region’s pre-hospital services, and we prospectively studied the environmental temperature in the Patient Transport compartment in both ground and air ambulances. Methods We recorded cabin temperature during Patient Transport in two ground ambulances and one ambulance helicopter in the catchment area of the University Hospital of North Norway using automatic temperature loggers. The data were collected for one month in each of the four seasons. We calculated the sum of degrees Celsius below 18 min by minute to describe the Patient exposure to unfavourably low cabin temperature, and present the data as box plots. The statistical differences between Transport mode and season were analysed with ANCOVA. Results The recorded cabin temperatures were higher during the summer than the other three seasons. However, we also found that helicopter Transports were performed at lower cabin temperatures and with significantly more exposure to unfavourably low temperatures than the ground ambulance Transports. Furthermore, the helicopter cabin reached the final temperature much slower than the ground ambulance cabins did or remained at a lower than comfortable temperature. Conclusions Helicopter cabin temperature during ambulance missions should be monitored closer, particularly for Patients at risk for developing admission hypothermia.
-
Cabin temperature during prehospital Patient Transport - a prospective observational study.
Scandinavian journal of trauma resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2020Co-Authors: Tuva Svendsen, Inger Lund-kordahl, Knut FredriksenAbstract:Few studies have investigated the Patient compartment temperatures during ambulance missions or its relation to admission hypothermia. Still hypothermia is a known risk factor for increased mortality and morbidity in both trauma and disease. This has special relevance to our sub-arctic region’s pre-hospital services, and we prospectively studied the environmental temperature in the Patient Transport compartment in both ground and air ambulances. We recorded cabin temperature during Patient Transport in two ground ambulances and one ambulance helicopter in the catchment area of the University Hospital of North Norway using automatic temperature loggers. The data were collected for one month in each of the four seasons. We calculated the sum of degrees Celsius below 18 min by minute to describe the Patient exposure to unfavourably low cabin temperature, and present the data as box plots. The statistical differences between Transport mode and season were analysed with ANCOVA. The recorded cabin temperatures were higher during the summer than the other three seasons. However, we also found that helicopter Transports were performed at lower cabin temperatures and with significantly more exposure to unfavourably low temperatures than the ground ambulance Transports. Furthermore, the helicopter cabin reached the final temperature much slower than the ground ambulance cabins did or remained at a lower than comfortable temperature. Helicopter cabin temperature during ambulance missions should be monitored closer, particularly for Patients at risk for developing admission hypothermia.
Mark E Sutter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Transportation-related hazardous materials incidents and the role of poison control centers.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2010Co-Authors: Mark E Sutter, James Lando, Joshua G Schier, Arthur Chang, Michael D. Schwartz, D. Adam Algren, Lauren LewisAbstract:BACKGROUND: Department of Transportation (DOT) mandates reporting of all serious hazardous materials incidents. Hazardous material exposures may result in secondary contamination of emergency departments, or delayed clinical effects. Poison control centers specialize in the management of Patients exposed to toxic substances; however, poison control center notification is not required. PURPOSE: The objective is to determine the frequency of poison control center notification after serious hazardous materials incidents when Patients were Transported to a hospital. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of serious hazardous materials incidents as reported by DOT, matched with data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers from 2002 through 2006 that involved Patient Transport. Incidents were divided into four groups: those reported to a poison control center within 0-360 minutes of the incident; those reported within 361-1440 minutes of the incident; those reported within 1441-4320 minutes of the incident; and no poison control center notification. Analyses were performed on variables including date, time, substance, and time to notification. Data were received in January 2008. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four serious incidents met inclusion criteria. One hundred thirty-four incidents (87%) occurred without poison control center notification. Poison control centers were notified in 20 incidents (12.9%); 15 incidents (9.7%) were reported within 0-360 minutes of the incident (M=115 minutes, range=5-359 minutes); four incidents (2.6%) were reported within 361-1440 minutes of the incident (M=652 minutes, range=566-750 minutes); and one incident (0.7%) was reported after 4320 minutes following the incident. CONCLUSIONS: Most serious hazardous materials incidents involving Patient Transport are not reported to poison control centers. Opportunities exist to increase utilization of poison control center resources without increasing financial burdens of the hazardous materials incident.
-
Transportation-related hazardous materials incidents and the role of poison control centers.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2010Co-Authors: Mark E Sutter, James Lando, Joshua G Schier, Arthur Chang, Michael D. Schwartz, D. Adam Algren, Lauren LewisAbstract:BACKGROUND: Department of Transportation (DOT) mandates reporting of all serious hazardous materials incidents. Hazardous material exposures may result in secondary contamination of emergency departments, or delayed clinical effects. Poison control centers specialize in the management of Patients exposed to toxic substances; however, poison control center notification is not required. PURPOSE: The objective is to determine the frequency of poison control center notification after serious hazardous materials incidents when Patients were Transported to a hospital. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of serious hazardous materials incidents as reported by DOT, matched with data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers from 2002 through 2006 that involved Patient Transport. Incidents were divided into four groups: those reported to a poison control center within 0-360 minutes of the incident; those reported within 361-1440 minutes of the incident; those reported within 1441-4320 minutes of the incident; and no poison control center notification. Analyses were performed on variables including date, time, substance, and time to notification. Data were received in January 2008. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four serious incidents met inclusion criteria. One hundred thirty-four incidents (87%) occurred without poison control center notification. Poison control centers were notified in 20 incidents (12.9%); 15 incidents (9.7%) were reported within 0-360 minutes of the incident (M=115 minutes, range=5-359 minutes); four incidents (2.6%) were reported within 361-1440 minutes of the incident (M=652 minutes, range=566-750 minutes); and one incident (0.7%) was reported after 4320 minutes following the incident. CONCLUSIONS: Most serious hazardous materials incidents involving Patient Transport are not reported to poison control centers. Opportunities exist to increase utilization of poison control center resources without increasing financial burdens of the hazardous materials incident.
Jefferey L. Burgess - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Efficacy of a proactive health and safety risk management system in the fire service
Injury Epidemiology, 2018Co-Authors: Gerald S. Poplin, Stephanie Griffin, Keshia Pollack Porter, Joshua Mallett, Chengcheng Hu, Virginia Day-nash, Jefferey L. BurgessAbstract:Background This study evaluated the efficacy of a fire department proactive risk management program aimed at reducing firefighter injuries and their associated costs. Methods Injury data were collected for the intervention fire department and a contemporary control department. Workers’ compensation claim frequency and costs were analyzed for the intervention fire department only. Total, exercise, Patient Transport, and fireground operations injury rates were calculated for both fire departments. Results There was a post-intervention average annual reduction in injuries (13%), workers’ compensation injury claims (30%) and claims costs (21%). Median monthly injury rates comparing the post-intervention to the pre-intervention period did not show statistically significant changes in either the intervention or control fire department. Conclusions Reduced workers’ compensation claims and costs were observed following the risk management intervention, but changes in injury rates were not statistically significant.
-
beyond the fireground injuries in the fire service
Injury Prevention, 2012Co-Authors: Gerald S. Poplin, Robin B Harris, Keshia M Pollack, Wayne F Peate, Jefferey L. BurgessAbstract:Background Although firefighting and emergency medical services are high-risk professions, few studies have identified the aetiology of injury in the fire service beyond the fireground. Methods Data were collected for work-related injuries in a medium-sized metropolitan fire department. In a descriptive study, the factors explored included the nature of injury, agent, mechanism, body location, environment, abbreviated injury scale (AIS), functional capacity index (FCI) and lost time status. Results From 2004 to 2009, the annual injury incidence rate averaged 17.7 per 100 employees. One-third of all injuries (32.9%) resulted from physical exercise activities, while Patient Transport, training drills and fireground operations resulted in 16.9%, 11.1% and 10.2% of injuries, respectively. For all job operations, sprains and strains were the most prevalent type of injury (40.2–85.2%), followed by contusions and lacerations (7.7–26.1%). The third most common injury was related to the conventional hazards of the individual job operation. Most injuries (n=862, 95.6%) were minor in severity, while 4.3% of injuries were classified as having some impedance of normal function (FCI 3). Moderate injuries (AIS 2) were infrequent, but comprised a greater proportion of fireground injuries (8.7%) than the other activities (1.0–4.1%); however, lost time injuries were more frequent for Patient Transport (46.1%) than other operations (22.0–29.1%). Conclusions Physical exercise, Patient Transport and training activities were responsible for a greater percentage of injuries than fireground operations. Focused efforts to improve the characterisation of risks during these more diverse set of work processes should help guide the development of salient strategies for injury prevention.
Tuva Svendsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cabin temperature during prehospital Patient Transport – a prospective observational study
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 2020Co-Authors: Tuva Svendsen, Inger Lund-kordahl, Knut FredriksenAbstract:Background Few studies have investigated the Patient compartment temperatures during ambulance missions or its relation to admission hypothermia. Still hypothermia is a known risk factor for increased mortality and morbidity in both trauma and disease. This has special relevance to our sub-arctic region’s pre-hospital services, and we prospectively studied the environmental temperature in the Patient Transport compartment in both ground and air ambulances. Methods We recorded cabin temperature during Patient Transport in two ground ambulances and one ambulance helicopter in the catchment area of the University Hospital of North Norway using automatic temperature loggers. The data were collected for one month in each of the four seasons. We calculated the sum of degrees Celsius below 18 min by minute to describe the Patient exposure to unfavourably low cabin temperature, and present the data as box plots. The statistical differences between Transport mode and season were analysed with ANCOVA. Results The recorded cabin temperatures were higher during the summer than the other three seasons. However, we also found that helicopter Transports were performed at lower cabin temperatures and with significantly more exposure to unfavourably low temperatures than the ground ambulance Transports. Furthermore, the helicopter cabin reached the final temperature much slower than the ground ambulance cabins did or remained at a lower than comfortable temperature. Conclusions Helicopter cabin temperature during ambulance missions should be monitored closer, particularly for Patients at risk for developing admission hypothermia.
-
Cabin temperature during prehospital Patient Transport - a prospective observational study.
Scandinavian journal of trauma resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2020Co-Authors: Tuva Svendsen, Inger Lund-kordahl, Knut FredriksenAbstract:Few studies have investigated the Patient compartment temperatures during ambulance missions or its relation to admission hypothermia. Still hypothermia is a known risk factor for increased mortality and morbidity in both trauma and disease. This has special relevance to our sub-arctic region’s pre-hospital services, and we prospectively studied the environmental temperature in the Patient Transport compartment in both ground and air ambulances. We recorded cabin temperature during Patient Transport in two ground ambulances and one ambulance helicopter in the catchment area of the University Hospital of North Norway using automatic temperature loggers. The data were collected for one month in each of the four seasons. We calculated the sum of degrees Celsius below 18 min by minute to describe the Patient exposure to unfavourably low cabin temperature, and present the data as box plots. The statistical differences between Transport mode and season were analysed with ANCOVA. The recorded cabin temperatures were higher during the summer than the other three seasons. However, we also found that helicopter Transports were performed at lower cabin temperatures and with significantly more exposure to unfavourably low temperatures than the ground ambulance Transports. Furthermore, the helicopter cabin reached the final temperature much slower than the ground ambulance cabins did or remained at a lower than comfortable temperature. Helicopter cabin temperature during ambulance missions should be monitored closer, particularly for Patients at risk for developing admission hypothermia.