Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T12:33:48.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Healthcare Workers Risk of Contact With Body Fluids in a Hospital: The Effect of Complying With the Universal Precautions Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Michael Seltz Kristensen ,
Niels Mogens Wernberg  and
Erling Anker-Moller
Michael Seltz Kristensen*
Affiliation:
Aarhus Amtssygehus, Tage Hansensgade, Aarhus C, Denmark
Niels Mogens Wernberg
Affiliation:
Aarhus Amtssygehus, Tage Hansensgade, Aarhus C, Denmark
Erling Anker-Moller
Affiliation:
Aarhus Amtssygehus, Tage Hansensgade, Aarhus C, Denmark
*
Falkoneralle 59 3.tv, OK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To test whether healthcare workers' knowledge of and compliance with the basic principle of the Universal Precautions policy (i.e., that all patients should be treated equally regarding contact with body fluids) influenced the rate of contact with patient blood.

Design:

Survey based on anonymous questionnaires.

Setting:

A 380-bed secondary and tertiary care hospital receiving emergency and elective patients.

Participants:

All employees having any contact with patients. Nine hundred one of 1,308 (69%) of the questionnaires were returned.

Results:

Twelve percent of the respondents (95% confidence interval [CI95] = 10.0%-14.4%) had experienced any contact with patient blood in the week preceding their answer. Physicians had the highest rate of contact with blood followed by nurses. In the five groups-physicians, nurses, laboratory technicians and phlebotomists, nursing aides, and student nurses-contact with blood was less frequent in the subgroup that did know and comply with the basic principle of the Universal Precautions policy, compared with the subgroup that did not. When adding the results for the 5 groups, contact with blood was experienced by 91 of 571 (15.9%, CI95=13%-19%) of the personnel who did not know and comply with Universal Precautions. The personnel who did know and comply with Universal Precautions had a significantly lower (9 of 111 [8.1%], p<.05, CI95 = 3.8%- 15%) rate of contact with blood.

Conclusions:

The healthcare workers who knew and complied with Universal Precautions had a significant lower rate of contact with patient blood than those who did not.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 13 , Issue 12 , December 1992 , pp. 719 - 724
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1992

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. Centers for Disease Control. Update: acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and human immunodeficiency virus infection among health-care workers. MMWR. 1988;37:229-234,239.Google Scholar
2. Ciesielski, CA, Bell, DM, Chamberland, ME, Marcus, R, Berkelman, RL, Curran, JW. When a house officer gets AIDS. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:1156–1157.Google Scholar
3. Beekmann, SE, Fahey, BJ, Gerberding, JL, et al. Risky business: using necessarily imprecise casualty counts to estimate occupational risks for HIV-1 infection. Infect Control Hasp Epidemiol. 1990;11:371–379.Google Scholar
4. Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings. MMWR. 1987;36(suppl 2S):3S–18S.Google Scholar
5. Centers for Disease Control. Update: universal precautions for prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and other bloodborne pathogens in health-care settings. MMWR. 1988;37:377–388.Google Scholar
6. Stock, SR, Gafni, A, Bloch, RF. Universal precautions to prevent HIV transmission to health care workers: an economic analysis. Can Med Assoc J. 1990;142:937–946.Google Scholar
7. Heald, AE, Ransohoff, DE Needlestick injuries among resident physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5:389–393.Google Scholar
8. Kristensen, MS, Sloth, E, Jensen, TK. Relationship between anesthetic procedure and contact of anesthesia personnel with patient body fluid. Anesthesiology. 1990;73:619–624.Google Scholar
9. Baker, JL, Kelen, GD, Sivertson, KT, Quinn, TC. Unsuspected human immunodeficiency virus in critically ill emergency patients. JAMA. 1987;257:2609–2611.Google Scholar
10. Kelen, GD, Fritz, S, Qaqish, B, et al. Unrecognized human immunodeficiency virus infection in emergency department patients. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1645–1650.Google Scholar
11. Kristensen, MS, Sloth, E, Jensen, TK. Procedure-related rate of contact of intensive care unit personnel with patient body fluids. Intensive Care Med. 1991;17:276–280.Google Scholar
12. Mandelbrot, DA, Smythe, WR, Norman, SA, et al. A survey of exposures, practices and recommendations of surgeons in the care of patients with human immunodeficiency virus. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1990;171:99–106.Google Scholar
13. Hammond, JS, Eckes, JM, Gomez, GA, Cunningham, DN. HIV, trauma, and infection control: Universal Precautions are usually ignored. J Trauma. 1990;30:555–561.Google Scholar