Faculty Bibliography

Agents of opportunity (AO) in academic medical centers (AMC) are defined as unregulated or lightly regulated substances used for medical research or patient care that can be used as 'dual purpose' substances by terrorists to inflict damage upon populations. Most of these agents are used routinely throughout AMC either during research or for general clinical practice. To date, the lack of careful regulations for AOs creates uncertain security conditions and increased malicious potential. Using a consensus-based approach, we collected information and opinions from staff working in an AMC and 4 AMC-affiliated hospitals concerning identification of AO, AO attributes, and AMC risk and preparedness, focusing on AO security and dissemination mechanisms and likely hospital response. The goal was to develop a risk profile and framework for AO in the institution. Agents of opportunity in 4 classes were identified and an AO profile was developed, comprising 16 attributes denoting information critical to preparedness for AO misuse. Agents of opportunity found in AMC present a unique and vital gap in public health preparedness. Findings of this project may provide a foundation for a discussion and consensus efforts to determine a nationally accepted risk profile framework for AO. This foundation may further lead to the implementation of appropriate regulatory policies to improve public health preparedness. Agents of opportunity modeling of dissemination properties should be developed to better predict AO risk

It is only possible to achieve a resilient community and an integrated, comprehensive, and resilient health system that can respond effectively to a public health emergency through active collaboration, coordination, and shared responsibility among a broad group of public and private stakeholders and the community itself. The Institute of Medicine established the Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events in 2007 to provide a neutral venue for dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders in the preparedness field. In the Forum's first year, the members began to address topics such as medical countermeasures dispensing, crisis standards of care, and medical surge capacity. In the past 9 months, the Forum members have expanded their areas of interest in response to current events and national areas of focus. Current topics include individual, family, and community preparedness and resiliency; medical countermeasures from development through dispensing; and the response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Across all of the initiatives undertaken by the Forum, the common element is that they tackle problems, gaps, and future opportunities that can only be successfully addressed if multiple stakeholders work together.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We developed recommendations for antidote stocking at hospitals that provide emergency care. METHODS: An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, clinical toxicology, critical care medicine, clinical pharmacy, emergency medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, poison centers, pulmonary medicine, and hospital accreditation) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for the quantity of an antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable period for delivery of each antidote. RESULTS: The panel recommended consideration of 24 antidotes for stocking. The panel recommended that 12 of the antidotes be available for immediate administration on patient arrival. In most hospitals, this period requires that the antidote be stocked in the emergency department. Another 9 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel identified additional antidotes that should be stocked by the hospital but are not usually needed within the first hour of treatment. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine the need for antidote stocking in that hospital. CONCLUSION: The antidote expert recommendations provide a tool to be used in creating practices for appropriate and adequate antidote stocking in hospitals that provide emergency care.