Risk communication needs in a chemical event

Janice S. Lee, PhD, MHS; Sharon L. Lee, PhD; Scott A. Damon, MAIA, CPH; Robert Geller, MD; Erik R. Janus, MS; Chris Ottoson, CIH; Marilyn J. Scott, CSP, ARM

doi:10.5055/jem.2006.0020

Authors

Janice S. Lee, PhD, MHS
Sharon L. Lee, PhD
Scott A. Damon, MAIA, CPH
Robert Geller, MD
Erik R. Janus, MS
Chris Ottoson, CIH
Marilyn J. Scott, CSP, ARM

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2006.0020

Keywords:

risk communication, chemical event, core competencies, benchmarks

Abstract

In an effort to define the role of state and local health agencies in a chemical terrorism event and to share knowledge, materials, and resources, representatives from state, local, and federal agencies formed the Interstate Chemical Terrorism (ICT) workgroup in 2002.
Working with the ICT workgroup, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funded a workshop effort to address the basic elements of risk communication (RC) needs in a chemical event. The primary goal of the workshop was to develop templates for chemical fact sheets destined for the general public and press, medical providers, public health officials, first responders, and impacted workers, as well as a list of core competencies and benchmarks. We summarize workshop discussion and outcomes.

Author Biographies

Janice S. Lee, PhD, MHS

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, US EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Sharon L. Lee, PhD

California Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Investigations Branch, Richmond, California.

Scott A. Damon, MAIA, CPH

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Environmental Health, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.

Robert Geller, MD

Georgia Poison Control Center, Hughes Spalding Children’s Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia.

Erik R. Janus, MS

Michigan Department of Community Health, Bureau of Epidemiology, Lansing, Michigan.

Chris Ottoson, CIH

Oregon OSHA, Enforcement Policy Section, Salem, Oregon.

Marilyn J. Scott, CSP, ARM

CSP, ARM, Portland, Oregon.

References

Center for Nonproliferation Studies. The Monterey WMD Terrorism Database page. Available at: http://cns.miis.edu/wmdt. Accessed January 13, 2005.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Publication No. 2004-144: Protecting Emergency Responders, Volume 3, Chapter 7 Integrated, Incident-Wide Safety Management. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-144/chap7.html. Accessed February 9, 2005.

The Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE). A National Assessment of the Status of Planning for Public Health Preparedness for Chemical and Radiological Contaminating Terrorism- Findings and Recommendations. Available at: http://www.cste.org/chemrad.pdf. Accessed January 13, 2005.

Auf der Heide E. Principles of hospital disaster planning (Part II (8). In: Hogan D, Burnstein JL (eds.) Disaster Medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002: 57-89.

Barbera JA, Macintyre AG. Mass Casualty Handbook: Hospital, Emergency Preparedness and Response. First ed. Jane’s Information Group, Ltd., 2003.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State Public Health System Performance Standards page. Available at: http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/nphpsp/TheInstruments.asp. Accessed January 13, 2005.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Local Public Health System Performance Standards page. Available at: http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/nphpsp/TheInstruments.asp. Accessed January 13, 2005.

Gebbie K, Merrill J, Hwang I, et al.: Identifying individual competency in emerging areas of practice: an applied approach. Qualitative Health Research. 2002; 12: 990-999.

Gebbie K, Merrill J: Pubic health worker competencies for emergency response. J. Public Health Mgmt Practice. 2002; 8: 73-81.

Lichtveld M, Hodge JG, Gebbie K, et al.: Preparedness on the frontline: what’s law got to do with it? J. Law, Medicine & Ethics Supplement to Volume 3. 2002; 30: 184-188.

Vanderford ML: Breaking new ground in WMD risk communication: the pre-event message development project. Biosecurity & Bio-terrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science. 2004; 2: 193-194.

Henderson JN, Henderson LC, Raskob GE, et al.: Chemical (VX) terrorist threat: public knowledge, attitudes, and responses. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice and Science. 2004; 2: 224-228.

Becker SM: Emergency communication and information issues in terrorist events involving radioactive materials. Biosecurity and Bio-terrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice and Science. 2004; 2: 195-207.

Glik D, Harrison K, Davoudi M, et al.: Public perceptions and risk communications for botulism. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice and Science. 2004; 2: 216-223.

Wray R, Jupka K: What does the public want to know in the event of a terrorist attack using plague? Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice and Science. 2004; 2: 208-215.

Prue CE, Lackey C, Swenarski L, et al.: Communication monitoring: shaping CDC’s emergency risk communication efforts. J. Health Communications. 2003; 8: 35-49.

Lasker RD: Redefining readiness: terrorism planning through the eyes of the public. Available at: http://www.cacsh.org/pdf/RedefiningReadinessStudy.pdf. Accessed January 13, 2005.

Hyams KC, Murphy FM, Wessely S: Responding to chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorism: the indirect and long-term health effects may present the greatest challenge. J Health Politics, Policy and Law. 2002; 27: 273-291.