Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:30:10.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Hurricane Rita on Texas Poison Center Calls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2017

Mathias B. Forrester
Mathias B. Forrester*
Affiliation:
Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, Texas, USA
*
Mathias B. Forrester Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance Unit, Texas Department of State Health Services, 1100 W. 49th Street, Austin, Texas 78756 USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction: On 24 September 2005, Hurricane Rita made landfall in eastern Texas, resulting in the mandatory evacuation of 16 counties and declaration of disaster areas in 22 counties afterward.

Hypothesis: This study tested whether the evacuation and hurricane landfall affected the pattern of Texas poison center calls.

Methods: Texas poison center calls received from the 22 disaster-area counties were identified for three time periods: (1) 10–20 September 2005 (pre-evacuation); (2) 21–25 September 2005 (evacuation and hurricane landfall); and (3) 26 September–08 October 2005 (post-evacuation). The numbers of calls reviewed during the two latter time periods were compared to a baseline range (BR) derived from the number of calls received during corresponding time periods in 2002, 2003, and 2004. This comparison was made for total calls, as well as calls involving pill identifications, other information, total exposures, carbon monoxide exposures, gasoline exposures, food poisoning, water contamination, and other information.

Results: The daily call volume was relatively stable during the pre-evacuation period (mean = 291), declined during the evacuation period (mean = 191), and returned to normal volume during the post-evacuation period (mean = 283). During the evacuation and landfall period, only gasoline exposure calls were higher than expected (n = 68, BR = 11–30). During the post-evacuation period, the only higher than expected call volumes were for carbon monoxide exposures (n = 11, BR -2–10) and gasoline exposures (n = 40, BR = 12–28).

Conclusions: During an evacuation, total poison center call volume in the affected area may decline, although certain calls such as those involving gasoline exposures might increase. After a hurricane, the total call volume returns to normal, but certain calls such as those involving carbon monoxide and gasoline exposures may increase. This information allows for poison centers and public health providers to prepare their response to hurricanes and to educate the population before such events occurs.

Keywords

carbon monoxidedisaster areaevacuationfood poisoninggasolinehurricanepoisonpoison centerwater contamination
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 256 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2008

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

1. Cable News Network: Rita turns to threaten Texas, Louisiana. CNN, 13 September 2005. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/22/rita/index.html. Accessed 29 October 2007.Google Scholar
2. Connolly, C, Moreno, S: Texas coast braces for Rita. The Washington Post 22 September 22 2005; A01.Google Scholar
3. Crawford and Company: Hurricane Rita: September 20–24, 2005: Situation paper.Available at http://www.crawfordandcompany.com/UserUploads/Storm%20Center/Crawford_Rita_situation_paper.pdf. Accessed 29 October 2007.Google Scholar
4. National Climate Data Center: Climate of 2005: Summary of Hurricane Rita. Available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/rita.html. Accessed 29 October 2007.Google Scholar
5. National Weather Service: Hurricane Rita—September 24, 2005. Available at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/hgx/projects/Rita05.htm. Accessed 29 October 2007.Google Scholar
6. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Monitoring poison control center data to detect health hazards during hurricane season—Florida, 2003–2005. MMWR 2006; 55: 426–428.Google Scholar
7. Cox, RD, Amundson, T, Smith, C, McKay, K: Impact of hurricane Katrina on poison control center call volume and type. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2006; 44: 675–676.Google Scholar
8. Jaramillo, JE, Forrester, MB, Winter, ML, Rivera, HL, Thompson, JD: Hurricane Katrina related calls to the Texas Poison Center Network. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2006; 44: 676–677.Google Scholar
9. Schauben, JL, Kay, RS, Schulte, J, Hopkins, RS: Utilizing poison center data to provide hurricane surveillance—The Florida experience. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2006; 44: 676.Google Scholar
10. CDC: Carbon monoxide poisonings after two major hurricanes—Alabama and Texas, August–October 2005. MMWR 2006; 55: 236–239.Google Scholar
11. Bronstein, AC, Seroka, AM, Wruk, KM, Peterson, J, Watson, WA, Bogdan, CM, Schaetzle, L, Dart, RC: Application of poison center TESS data for toxicosurveillance: The concept of the surveillance technician—10% automation and 90% perspiration. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2004; 42: 787–788.Google Scholar
12. Litovitz, TL, Watson, WA, Belson, M, Funk, AB, Patel, M, Schier, JG, Kilboume, E, Rubin, C: Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS): Real time toxicosurveillance across United States poison centers. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2004; 197: 156. Abstract.Google Scholar
13. Anderson, DL, Miller, B, Kassenborg, H, Hadidi, M, Overbo, N: Utilizing poison center data for public health surveillance. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2003; 41: 687. Abstract.Google Scholar
14. Allen, S, Bernstein, J, Weisman, R, Ragone, S: The use of poison centers for surveillance and response to bioterrorism events. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2002; 40: 642–643. Abstract.Google Scholar
15. Mrvos, R, Krenzelok, EP: Poison center surveillance for bio chem terrorism. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2002, 40: 638–639.Google Scholar
16. Bayer, M, Hanoian, A, Caperino Crean, L: A documented association of poison control center media interactions and carbon monoxide calls. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2003; 41: 708. Abstract.Google Scholar
17. Vicas, I, McGrath Hill, C: Evaluation of a TV ad campaign promoting poison center (PC) awareness. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2003; 41: 698. Abstract.Google Scholar
18. Wahl, M, LeMaster, J, Malinowski, R: Effect of education on children age 0–6 in a small Midwestern city: More calls to regional poison center; fewer calls originating from health care facilities (HCF). J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2003; 41: 704–705.Google Scholar
19. Forrester, MB, Stanley, SK: Calls about anthrax to the Texas Poison Center Network in relation to the anthrax bioterrorism attack in 2001. Vet Hum Texicol 2003; 45: 247–248.Google Scholar
20. Forrester, MB: Investigation of Texas poison center calls regarding a chlorine gas release: implications for terrorist attack toxicosurveillance. Tex Med 2006; 102: 52–57.Google ScholarPubMed
21. Shepherd, G, Keyes, DC, Borys, DJ, Ellis, MD, Ryan, ML, Watson, WA: Space shuttle Columbia disaster: Utilization of poison control centers in Texas and Louisiana. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2004; 42: 389–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Banerji, S, May, J, Wruk, K, Seroka, A, Bornstein, A: Let it snow! Emergency set up of 6 poison center remote agents in under 8 hours during a severe blizzard. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2007; 45: 607–608.Google Scholar
23. Vassilev, ZP, Kashani, J, Ruck, B, Hoffman, RS, Marcus, SM: Poison control center surge capacity during an unusual increase in call volume—Results from a natural experiment. Prehospital Disast Med 2007; 22: 55–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Gallo, A, Ferries, H, Houle, J: Teleworking: Enhancing the provision of provincial poison services. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2006; 44: 723.Google Scholar
25. Seroka, A, Wruk, K, Bronstein, A, Bogdan, G: Pandemic flu plan—Does your poison center have one? Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2006; 44: 775.Google Scholar