Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16168307

Decontamination.

Marc Houston·Robert G Hendrickson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Decontamination is the removal or reduction of chemical, biologic, or radiologic agents from the patient's skin, mucosa, lungs, and gastrointestinal tract. Decontamination is an important step in decreasing the clinical effects of the agent on the patient, as well as protecting coworkers from exposure. For most agents and the vast majority of scenarios, the removal of clothing and a simple 5- to 6-minute shower with soap and water is sufficient to eliminate the risks to the patient and hospital staff. In rare circumstances, additional steps in decontamination including gastric lavage, broncho-alveolar lavage, surgical removal of wound foreign bodies, and administration of activated charcoal, polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution, and radioisotope binding agents, may be necessary.

Explore related subjects

Allied Health PersonnelBioterrorismChemical WarfareDecontaminationEmergency Medical ServicesEnvironmental ExposureGastric LavageHumansOccupational ExposureRadioisotopesWounds and InjuriesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marc Houston, Robert G Hendrickson. 2005. Decontamination.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2005.06.001

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Cancer and leukemia group B clinical research associates committee.

The Cancer and Leukemia Group B is dedicated to developing and implementing training programs that will enhance the skills and abilities of Clinical Research Associates (CRA) involved in all aspects of data collection and research. Training programs not only improve overall knowledge and professionalism but also improve the integrity of study data. The CRA roles and responsibilities include the following: collect, analyze, and monitor data; collaborate with other members of the health care team; insure regulatory mandates are followed; manage the care of research participants; assist in the recruitment and enrollment of human subjects; protect subjects rights by adhering to Institutional Review Board guidelines, the Code of Federal Regulations; prepare and submit timely adverse event experience reports; maintain case report forms and drug accountability records; educate other health care professionals, patients, and families regarding clinical trials; participate in research audits; and function as a team member with the research team. In addition, CRAs may also be responsible for writing reports, grant, and budget development and the development of protocols, forms, and informed consent documents.

Allied Health Personnel↗
PubMed2006

Understanding of diabetes prevention studies: questionnaire survey of professionals in diabetes care.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Diabetes prevention studies have reported reductions of diabetes risk by up to 60%. Since the underlying metabolic changes are small, the clinical significance of this effect may be overestimated. The present survey explores the extent to which different formats of presenting study results may influence diabetes healthcare professionals' perceptions of the importance of intervention effects on diabetes risk. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants of three European diabetes conferences (160 nurse educators, 112 physicians, 27 other professionals) were presented with a questionnaire that included nine items, in which results from three diabetes prevention studies were presented in different ways. RESULTS: Participation rate was 96%. Effects were interpreted as important or very important by 92% (255/276) when results were presented as proportions of subjects with diabetes (14% intervention group, 29% control group), by 87% (248/285) when results were communicated as a risk reduction of 57%, by 39% (110/284) when the corresponding fasting plasma glucose values were presented (mean difference 0.3 mmol/l), and by 18% (52/283) when glycosylated haemoglobin values were used (6.0 vs 6.1%). Corresponding results of the three diabetes prevention studies were rated as being of identical importance by only 23, 13 and 16% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND INTERPRETATION: Healthcare professionals rate the benefit of preventive interventions substantially higher when changes in diabetes risk are communicated rather than related glycaemic parameters. Transformation of continuous metabolic data into diagnostic categories may impair understanding of study effects.

Allied Health Personnel↗