Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Oct-Dec;11(4):458-65.
doi: 10.1080/00207450701537076.

Disaster training for prehospital providers

Affiliations

Disaster training for prehospital providers

Christine J Chaput et al. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007 Oct-Dec.

Abstract

Objective: To survey prehospital providers to determine 1) the quantity and format of training recalled over the past year in chemical, biological, radiological/nuclear (CBRN), and other mass casualty events (MCEs); 2) preferred educational formats; 3) self-assessed preparedness for various CBRN/MCEs; and 4) perceived likelihood of occurrence for CBRN/MCEs.

Methods: A survey, consisting of 11 questions, was distributed to 1,010 prehospital providers in a system where no formal CBRN/mass casualty training was given.

Results: Surveys were completed by 640 (63%) prehospital providers. Twenty-two percent (22%) of prehospital providers recalled no training within the past year for CBRN or other MCEs, 19% reported 1-5 hours, 15% reported 6-10 hours, 24% reported 11-39 hours, and 7% reported receiving greater than 40 hours. Lectures and drills were the most common formats for prior education. On a five-point scale (1: "Never Helpful" through 5: "Always Helpful") regarding the helpfulness of training methods, median scores were the following: drills-5, lectures-4, self-study packets-3, Web-based learning-3, and other-4. On another five-point scale (1: "Totally Unprepared" through 5: "Strongly Prepared"), prehospital providers felt most prepared for MCEs-4, followed by chemical-4, biological-3, and radiation/nuclear-3. Over half (61%) felt MCEs were "Somewhat Likely" or "Very Likely" to occur, whereas chemical (42%), biological (38%), or radiation/nuclear (33%) rated lower.

Conclusion: The amount of training in the past year reported for CBRN events varied greatly, with almost a quarter recalling no education. Drills and lectures were the most used and preferred formats for disaster training. Prehospital providers felt least prepared for a radiological;/nuclear event. Future studies should focus on the consistency and quality of education provided.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources