Are universal precautions realistic?

Knowledge, attitude and practice universal basic precautions by medical personnel in a teaching hospital

SUMMARY BACKGROUND

Universal Basic Precautions (UBP) are not well understood nor implemented by health professionals, though crucial in HIV/AIDS prevention. As defined by Garner, UBP refers to "the prevention of transmission of blood borne pathogens like HIV through strict respect by health workers of rules concerning care and nursing"

OBJECTIVES

To find out knowledge and attitudes of medical personnel doctors in the Department of Surgery of the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital to HIV transmission and to find out their current practices of UBP in surgery.

METHODS

The study was carried out using a structured questionnaire which was self administered to fifty medical personnel after preliminary introduction at a plenary session.

RESULTS

Results showed that alleged knowledge did not match actual tested knowledge (92% verses 71%). Knowledge of all the forms of HIV transmission was rather limited among medical personnel. Practice of UBP was also not universal as 44% preferred to rely on pre-op HIV testing of patients and knowledge of their status whilst 36% of respondents admitted reluctance to perform an invasive procedure on an HIV positive patient.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the need for the Ministry of Health, the Ghana Health Service and its institutions to develop and implement specific policies on the practice of UBP, training of health care providers and ensuring the consistent supply of protective materials.

Prevalence of injuries and reporting of accidents among health care workers at the University Hospital of the West Indies

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the knowledge, awareness and practices of health care workers towards universal precautions at the University Hospital of the West Indies. The study also examined the prevalence of injuries experienced by health care workers, as well as incidence of accidents and compliance with post-exposure prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross sectional survey was conducted in September and October 2007. A 28-item self-administered questionnaire was provided to two hundred health care workers including medical doctors, medical technologists, nurses and porters to assess knowledge and practices regarding universal precautions, prevalence of injuries and incidence of accidents.

RESULTS

Almost two-thirds (62.3%) of the respondents were aware of policies and procedures for reporting accidents while one-third (33.2%) were unsure. All nurses were aware of policies and procedures for reporting accidents, followed by medical doctors (88%) and medical technologists (61.2%). The majority (81.5%) of the respondents experienced splashes from bodily fluid. Over three-quarters of medical doctors (78%) and two-thirds of nurses (64%) reported having experienced needle stick injuries, while the incidence among medical technologists was remarkably lower (26%). The majority of the respondents (59%) experienced low accident incidence while just over one-tenth (14%) reported high incidence. Eighty four respondents reported needle stick injuries; just under two-thirds (59.5%) of this group received post-exposure treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that majority of health care workers were aware of policies and procedures for reporting accidents. Splashes from body fluids, needle stick injuries and cuts from other objects were quite prevalent among health care workers. There is a need for monitoring systems which would provide accurate information on the magnitude of needle stick injuries and trends over time, potential risk factors, emerging new problems, and the effectiveness of interventions at The University Hospital of the West Indies and other hospitals in Jamaica.

Barrier precautions in trauma: is knowledge enough?

OBJECTIVES

The risk of blood and body fluid exposure and, therefore, risk of blood-borne disease transmission is increased during trauma resuscitations. Use of barrier precautions (BPs) to protect health care workers (HCWs) from exposure and infection has been codified in hospital rules and in national trauma education policy. Despite these requirements, reported rates of BP compliance vary widely. The reasons for noncompliance are not known. This study assesses self-reported rates of BP usage during resuscitations among trauma professionals, explores reasons for noncompliance, and compares self-reported compliance rates with actual observed compliance rates.

METHODS

A survey regarding BPs was distributed to all HCWs involved in trauma resuscitations at our Level I trauma center. All surgical and emergency medicine residents as well as attending faculty from both disciplines and nursing staff were included in this study. A total of 161 surveys were distributed and 123 were returned.

RESULTS

Most HCWs (114 of 123 [93%]) reported at least one exposure (usually intact skin contact) to blood or other body fluids. A considerable variation in the type of BP used was reported for those HCWs who reported use of BPs "all of the time." Of the HCWs who reported universal use of BPs, reported usage rates were as follows: gloves, 105 of 123 (85%); eyewear (no side protectors), 58 of 123 (47%); eyewear (side protectors), 20 of 123 (16%); gowns, 22 of 123 (18%); and masks, 5 of 123 (4%). The two most common reasons for noncompliance were "time factors" (61%) and "BPs are too cumbersome" (29%). Observed compliance rates were statistically significantly lower than self-reported rates in all BPs except gloves (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The wide variation in BP use and the gap between perceived and actual usage that we have observed suggest that the effectiveness of current educational approaches to ensure BP use is inadequate.

Nurses' knowledge of and compliance with universal precautions in an acute care hospital

A cross-sectional survey was conducted to investigate the nurses' knowledge of and compliance with Universal Precautions (UP) in an acute hospital in Hong Kong. A total of 450 nurses were randomly selected from a population of acute care nurses and 306 were successfully recruited in the study. The study revealed that the nurses' knowledge of UP was inadequate. In addition, UP was not only insufficiently and inappropriately applied, but also selectively practiced. Nearly all respondents knew that used needles should be disposed of in a sharps' box after injections. However, nurses had difficulty in distinguishing between deep body fluids and other general body secretions that are not considered infectious in UP. A high compliance was reported regarding hand-washing, disposal of needles and glove usage. However, the use of other protective wear such as masks and goggles was uncommon. The results also showed no significant relationships between the nurses' knowledge and compliance with UP. It is recommended that UP educational programmes need to consider attitudes in conjunction with empirical knowledge. Nurse managers and occupational health nurses should take a leadership role to ensure safe practices are used in the care of patients.

Universal precautions--do Irish anaesthetists comply?

BACKGROUND

Anaesthetists are at high risk from blood-borne pathogens. Universal Precautions (UP) include the routine use of appropriate barrier precautions and techniques to reduce the likelihood of exposure to blood, body fluids and tissues that may contain pathogens. The compliance of Irish anaesthetists with these precautions has not been studied.

AIM

To study the attitudes of Irish anaesthetists to Universal Precautions.

METHOD

A postal questionnaire was sent to 210 anaesthetists currently practising in Ireland. The questionnaire was based on a model used in Australia and New Zealand.

RESULTS

There was a 50% response rate to the survey. Only 15% of respondents had taken a risk history from a patient in the preceding four weeks. Resheathing of needles was commonplace. The effectiveness of hepatitis B immunisation was rarely checked and only 66% of respondents believe implementation of Universal Precautions to be practical.

CONCLUSION

Irish anaesthetists comply poorly with Universal Precautions.

[Surgical scrub: evaluation of its adequacy for the prevention of biological risks in surgical procedures II: effectiveness of surgical scrub]

The study elaborated evaluation patterns of the components of the surgical scrub in hospitals of the district of São Paulo. The most important difficulty was the lack of rules and consent on the types of the fabrics, as a microbiological and contact with blood and other fluids barrier. However, it was possible to identify positive and problematic aspects. It was observed that the components are similar among the hospitals, considering the design and the way of fabrics production. Gloves were the ones with the best quality results, while shootweares were the worst. The most problematic aspect was referred to the acquisition controls and the re-use process of the components.

Precautions against cross-infection during operations for maxillofacial trauma

One hundred oral and maxillofacial units in the UK were sent a postal questionnaire. Surgical staff of all grades were asked which infection-control measures were taken during the treatment of maxillofacial fractures. Two hundred and ninety-four questionnaires were completed, a response rate of 49%. If the patient was known to be infected by a blood-borne viral disease, significantly more surgeons used standard barrier precautions such as eye protection, fluid-resistant gowns, drapes, ball-ended clips, adhesive tapes and intermediate trays (P<0.0001). Bone-plating techniques were used in preference to wire osteosynthesis (P<0.0001). Only 31 (10.5%) of surgeons routinely used double gloves but 250 (85%) did so if the patient was an infection risk (P<0.0001). Universal precautions were not applied equally to all patients.

[Surgical scrub: evaluation of its adequacy in preventing biological risks in surgery: I. Its use in surgery]

The study elaborated approaches for adequate use of the surgical scrub and it evaluated, through systematized observation, the performance of the surgical team during the surgery. The adopted procedure was very valid, allowing to recognize positive and problematic aspects. Except the protecting glasses, all the other components of the surgical scrub were used. The subject located in the use form, where caps and masks were more problematic among anaesthesists and circulate nurses; apron and gloves among surgeons and, mainly, scrub nurses.

Glove perforation during surgical extraction of wisdom teeth

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the incidence of sterile surgical glove perforation during hospital-based surgical extractions of wisdom teeth performed with patients under general anesthesia.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 104 consecutive patients (420 gloves) were studied prospectively. A standardized water inflation technique was used.

RESULTS

The operative perforation rate was 8.6%, or 4.3% per surgeon per operative side. The individual glove perforation rate was 2.1% per operation. Over 55% of perforations were not noticed at the time of surgery. There were no skin-penetrating injuries or visible contamination with body fluids. The perforation rate was the same with drill and chisel.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of glove perforation is lower than previously reported. The surgical extraction of wisdom teeth carries a relatively low yet still significant risk with regard to exposure to bloodborne cross-infection. We recommend that high-quality surgical gloves be used and that universal precautions be adhered to.