Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T08:19:45.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time Motion Studies for Conduct of Population Monitoring During Functional Radiological Exercises at Community Reception Centers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2022

Lauren Finklea Open the ORCID record for Lauren Finklea [Opens in a new window] ,
Adela Salame-Alfie  and
Armin Ansari
Lauren Finklea*
Affiliation:
Radiation Studies Section, National Center for Environmental Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
Adela Salame-Alfie
Affiliation:
Radiation Studies Section, National Center for Environmental Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
Armin Ansari
Affiliation:
Radiation Studies Section, National Center for Environmental Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Lauren Finklea, Email: LNA8@cdc.gov.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The objectives of this study were to: validate current capacity estimates for radiological emergency response by collecting time motion observations from stations that would be used for screening and decontaminating populations, and use collected times to evaluate potential impact on current throughput calculations.

Methods:

Time observations were collected at 11 functional radiation exercises across the country and aggregated for analysis for population monitoring activities, including contamination screening, decontamination, and registration. Collected times were compared to published estimates in current planning guidance, and evaluated to determine the suitability of using exercise observations to estimate throughput capacity.

Results:

2532-time observations were collected from 11 functional exercises. Of those, 2380 were validated and used for analysis. Contamination screening times varied greatly from current guidance, ranging from 19% below to 267% above existing estimates. Measurements indicate that capacity to perform contamination screening is significantly overestimated when using current estimates of service times and calculations when compared to observed aggregate service times.i

Conclusion:

Aggregate service time data presented in this study can be used to yield a more realistic estimate of capacity to respond to a radiation event.

Keywords

time and motion studyradiation emergencydecontaminationpopulation monitoring
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 17 , 2023 , e237
Creative Commons
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc.
Copyright
© Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Population monitoring in radiation emergencies, A guide for state and local health planners. Updated April 2014. Accessed July 7, 2021. https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/pdf/population-monitoring-guide.pdf Google Scholar
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Program manual radiological emergency preparedness. FEMA p-1028/ December 2019. Updated 2019. Accessed July 7, 2021. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_rep-program_manual_12-23-2019.pdf Google Scholar
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Contamination monitoring standard for a portal monitor used for radiological emergency response, FEMA-REP-21. Updated 1995. Accessed July 7, 2021. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=785007 Google Scholar
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Contamination monitoring guidance for portable instruments used for radiological emergency response to nuclear power plant accidents, FEMA-REP-22. Updated 2002. Accessed July 7, 2021.https://remm.hhs.gov/FEMA-REP-21.pdf Google Scholar
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Statements of consideration for the contamination monitoring standard for a portal monitor used for radiological emergency response. March 1995.Google Scholar
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Background information for the contamination monitoring standard for a portal monitor used for radiological emergency response. March 1995.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community reception center drill toolkit. Updated August 13, 2019. Accessed July 7, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/crc/crctoolkit.htm Google Scholar
Finkler, SA, Knickman, JR, Hendrickson, G, Lipkin, M Jr, Thompson, WG. A comparison of work-sampling and time-and-motion techniques for studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1993;28(5):577-597.Google ScholarPubMed
National Association of County and City Health Officials. Guide to incorporating electronic resources in population monitoring planning. Updated September 20, 2018. Accessed July 7, 2021. https://toolbox.naccho.org/pages/tool-view.html?id=5791 Google Scholar
Kramer, GH, Johnson, S, Hauck, B, Capello, K, Quayle, D. Exercise maritime response (EXMR): lessons learned for population monitoring and communications. Health Phys. 2007;92(5 Suppl):S112-S122. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000258923.98751.b3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C, Capello, K, Jeng, HA, Hauck, B, Kramer, GH. Modeling population screening process for maximizing throughputs. Health Phys. 2014;106(5 Suppl 2):S88-S93. doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000114 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. SimPLER (Simulation program for leveraging and evaluating resources) suites. Updated June 2021. Accessed July 7, 2021. https://ephtracking.cdc.gov/Applications/simPler/home Google Scholar