Occupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens among healthcare workers in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

2007 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Rapparini ◽  
V. Saraceni ◽  
L.M. Lauria ◽  
P.F. Barroso ◽  
V. Vellozo ◽  
...  
1999 ◽  
Vol 20 (02) ◽  
pp. 110-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deniz Akduman ◽  
Lynn E. Kim ◽  
Rodney L. Parks ◽  
Paul B. L'Ecuyer ◽  
Sunita Mutha ◽  
...  

AbstractObjective:To evaluate Universal Precautions (UP) compliance in the operating room (OR).Design:Prospective observational cohort. Trained observers recorded information about (1) personal protective equipment used by OR staff; (2) eyewear, glove, or gown breaks; (3) the nature of sharps transfers; (4) risk-taking behaviors of the OR staff; and (5) needlestick injuries and other blood and body-fluid exposures.Setting:Barnes-Jewish Hospital, a 1,000-bed, tertiary-care hospital affiliated with Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.Participants:OR personnel in four surgical specialties (gynecologic, orthopedic, cardiothoracic, and general). Procedures eligible for the study were selected randomly. Hand surgery and procedures requiring no or a very small incision (eg, arthroscopy, laparoscopy) were excluded.Results:A total of 597 healthcare workers' procedures were observed in 76 surgical cases (200 hours). Of the 597 healthcare workers, 32% wore regular glasses, and 24% used no eye protection. Scrub nurses and medical students were more likely than other healthcare workers to wear goggles. Only 28% of healthcare workers double gloved, with orthopedic surgery personnel being the most compliant. Sharps passages were not announced in 91% of the surgical procedures. In 65 cases (86%), sharps were adjusted manually. Three percutaneous and 14 cutaneous exposures occurred, for a total exposure rate of 22%.Conclusion:OR personnel had poor compliance with UP. Although there was significant variation in use of personal protective equipment between groups, the total exposure rate was high (22%), indicating the need for further training and reinforcement of UP to reduce occupational exposures.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 153-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lahuerta ◽  
Dejana Selenic ◽  
Getachew Kassa ◽  
Goodluck Mwakitosha ◽  
Joseph Hokororo ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 1109-1115
Author(s):  
Rajni Rai ◽  
Sonia El‐Zaemey ◽  
Nidup Dorji ◽  
Lin Fritschi

1995 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 287-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy B. Agerton ◽  
Francis J. Mahoney ◽  
Louis B. Polish ◽  
Craig N. Shapiro

2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-77
Author(s):  
Moayad A. Wahsheh ◽  
Zeinab M. Hassan ◽  
Maysoun H. Atoum

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 67
Author(s):  
Enis Uruci

Exposure prevention is the primary strategy to reduce the risk of occupational bloodborne pathogen infections in healthcare workers (HCW). HCWs should be made aware of the medicolegal and clinical relevance of reporting an exposure, and have ready access to expert consultants to receive appropriate counselling, treatment and follow-up. Vaccination against hepatitis B virus (HBV), and demonstration of immunisation before employment are strongly recommended. HCWs with postvaccinal anti-HBs levels, 1-2 months after vaccine completion, -or=10 mIU/mL are considered as responders. Responders are protected against HBV infection: booster doses of vaccine or periodic antibody concentration testing are not recommended. Alternative strategies to overcome non-response should be adopted. Isolated anti-HBc positive HCWs should be tested for anti-HBcIgM and HBV-DNA: if negative, anti-HBs response to vaccination can distinguish between infection (anti-HBs -or=50 mIU/ml 30 days after 1st vaccination: anamnestic response) and false positive results(anti-HBs -or=10 mUI/ml 30 days after 3rd vaccination: primary response); true positive subjects have resistance to re-infection. and do not need vaccination The management of an occupational exposure to HBV differs according to the susceptibility of the exposed HCW and the serostatus of the source. When indicated, post-exposure prophylaxis with HBV vaccine, hepatitis B immunoglobulin or both must be started as soon as possible (within 1-7 days). In the absence of prophylaxis against hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, follow-up management of HCV exposures depends on whether antiviral treatment during the acute phase is chosen. Test the HCW for HCV-Ab at baseline and after 6 months; up to 12 for HIV-HCV co-infected sources. If treatment is recommended, perform ALT (amino alanine transferase) activity at baseline and monthly for 4 months after exposure, and qualitative HCV-RNA when an increase is detected. Introduction Bloodborne pathogens such as hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) represent an important hazard for healthcare workers (HCWs) [1]. In the general population, HCV prevalence varies geographically from about 0.5 percent in northern countries to 2 percent in Mediterranean countries, with some 5 million chronic carriers estimated in Europe; while HBV prevalence ranges from 0.3 percent to 3 percent. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year in Europe 304 000 HCWs are exposed to at least one percutaneous injury with a sharp object contaminated with HBV, 149 000 are exposed to HCV and 22 000 to HIV. The probability of acquiring a bloodborne infection following an occupational exposure has been estimated to be on average. Bloodborne pathogens such as hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) represent an important hazard for healthcare workers (HCWs) [1]. In the general population, HCV prevalence varies geographically from about 0.5 percent in northern countries to 2 percent in Mediterranean countries, with some 5 million chronic carriers estimated in Europe; while HBV prevalence ranges from 0.3 percent to 3 percent. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year in Europe 304 000 HCWs are exposed to at least one percutaneous injury with a sharp object contaminated with HBV, 149 000 are exposed to HCV and 22 000 to HIV.We present here recommendations for the general management of occupational risk of bloodborne infections, HBV vaccination and management of HBV and HCV exposures. A description of the project and recommendations for HIV post-exposure management, including antiretroviral prophylaxis, has been previously published [2], and so issues related to occupational risk and prevention of HIV infection following an occupational exposure will not be discussed further.


BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e058048
Author(s):  
Philip Apraku Tawiah ◽  
Alberta Baffour-Awuah ◽  
Emmanuel Appiah-Brempong ◽  
Evans Afriyie-Gyawu

IntroductionThe formation, modification and implementation of occupational health and safety policy for the Ghana healthcare industry hinge on data and reviews on occupational exposures. However, there is no synthesised review to speak to the issues of these occupational exposures. A scoping review on occupational exposures among the health workforce in Ghana will provide a broad overview of exposures, and can guide and assist in making decisions on occupational health issues relating to healthcare workers.Methods and analysisArksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology framework will guide the conduct of this scoping review. Primary research studies, government documents and other information on occupational exposures among healthcare workers published in the English language will be retrieved from databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO and Google scholar. A systematic search strategy will be employed to identify articles from 1 January 2010 until 30 November 2021. Also, grey literature sources in Ghana including government and tertiary institutions websites will be searched. A reference list of key studies and other available non-electronic materials will also be screened to identify relevant studies for inclusion. The review will consider studies that address prevalence, knowledge and predisposing factors of occupational exposures along with the use of occupational hazards control/preventive measures. After removal of duplicates, and title and abstract screening, relevant articles will be subjected to full-text analysis. The screening processes will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Data will then be extracted and presented in tabular form with a narrative to aid easy comprehension.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review does not require ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and stakeholder meetings.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ndubuisi . Akpuh ◽  
Ajayi Ikeoluwapo ◽  
Adebowale Ayo ◽  
Idris H Suleiman ◽  
Patrick Nguku ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Rivers State is among the states with high HIV prevalence in Nigeria. Occupational exposure to HIV through blood or body fluids of HIV/AIDS patients is a recognised risk factor of HIV infections among healthcare workers. We identified the determinants of occupational exposures to HIV among healthcare workers in Prevention of Maternal to Child Transmission (PMTCT) sites within Port Harcourt metropolis in Rivers State. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted and multi-stage sampling technique was used to select 341 healthcare providers from 22 public and 22 private health facilities in PMTCT sites in Port Harcourt metropolis. The data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square and logistic regression models (p-value = 0.05). Results Respondents’ mean age was 35.9±SD8.4 years, 270 (80.1%) and 171(50.7%) were females, and from public health facilities respectively. Prevalence of occupational exposure of healthcare workers to HIV in the past 12 months was 153 (45.0%), and 96 (63.3%) experienced such exposure more than once. Contacts with potentially infectious body fluid accounted for the largest proportion 51 (33.3%); followed by needle stick prick 49 (32.6%). About 189 (56.1%) had safety information at their disposal and this serves as a reminder on safety precautions. The likelihood of occupational exposure was significantly higher among doctors (AOR=2.22, 95% C.I=1.16-4.25,) but lower among environmental health workers (AOR=0.10, 95% C.I=0.02-0.46,) than nurses/midwives when other factors were included in the model. Conclusion Occupational exposure to blood and body fluids remains a frequent occurrence among healthcare workers; highest among doctors in PMTCT sites in the study area. Provision of protective safety materials, training and enforcement of adherence to universal precaution strategies are highly recommended.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document