The Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 37, Issue 2 , Pages 139-143, August 2009

Organophosphate Antidote Auto-Injectors vs. Traditional Administration: A Time Motion Study

  • Terri Rebmann, PHD, RN, CIC

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Biosecurity, Saint Louis University, School of Public Health, St. Louis, Missouri
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint Address: Terri Rebmann, phd, rn, cic, Curricular Affairs, Institute for Biosecurity, Saint Louis University, School of Public Health, 3545 Lafayette Suite 300, St. Louis, MO 63104
  • ,
  • Bruce W. Clements, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Center for Emergency Response and Terrorism, Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Jefferson City, Missouri
  • ,
  • Jeffrey A. Bailey, MD, FACS

      Affiliations

    • United States Air Force Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills, Saint Louis University, School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri
  • ,
  • R. Gregory Evans, PHD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Biosecurity, Saint Louis University, School of Public Health, St. Louis, Missouri

Received 25 January 2007; received in revised form 6 September 2007; accepted 14 September 2007. published online 03 June 2008.

Abstract 

Organophosphates may be used as weapons in chemical attacks on civilian or military populations. Antidotes are available to counter the effects of organophosphates, but they must be administered shortly after exposure. Timing required to administer organophosphate antidotes using traditional equipment vs. auto-injectors has not been studied. This study is intended to quantify and compare the time required to administer organophosphate antidotes using traditional equipment vs. auto-injectors in different treatment conditions. The study was a randomized, un-blinded design. There were 62 participants assigned to one of three groups: Mark I, ATNAA (antidote treatment nerve agent auto-injector), and traditional needle/syringe; however, the results from only 56 participants could be analyzed. Injection trials were videotaped. Subjects also completed a 14-item survey containing demographic questions, perceived ease of injection, receipt of prior training, and preferred training format for organophosphate treatment. Injection time differentials were compared using one-way analysis of variance; post hoc evaluation was performed using the Scheffe test with Bonferroni correction. Fifty-six subjects completed this study. The ATNAA required less time to administer than the Mark I or traditional needle/syringe devices (p < .001). There was no difference in time to administer the Mark I auto-injectors vs. a traditional needle/syringe. There were no differences between injection time and occupation, receipt of prior training, wearing of personal protective equipment, or perceived ease of injection device use. The use of auto-injectors shortens response time for administering organophosphate antidote treatment. An ATNAA auto-injector can be administered in less than half the time it takes to administer a single injection using a needle and syringe or two injections using a Mark I. Mark I can be administered in approximately the same amount of time it takes to administer a single injection using a needle and syringe. The difference between injection time for the ATNAA and needle and syringe would have been even larger if two injections were given with the needle and syringe. The wearing or absence of personal protective equipment does not affect injection time.

Keywords: chemical terrorism, time and motion studies, antidotes, auto injector

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This study was partially funded by a grant from Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc.

PII: S0736-4679(08)00041-3

doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.09.043

The Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 37, Issue 2 , Pages 139-143, August 2009