Article
Should infection control practitioners do follow-up of staff exposures to patient blood and body fluids?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-6553(96)90000-0Get rights and content

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficiency of a joint infection control/occupational health program for the follow-up of accidental blood or bloody body fluid exposures in health care workers.

Methods: A comprehensive staff follow-up program for all blood exposures with known patient sources was initiated in 1989, consisting of patient follow-up by the Infection Control Department (risk assessment for hepatitis B virus [HBV] and HIV infection and obtaining of consent for HIV testing) and staff follow-up by the Occupational Health Department. In 1992 a mailed survey was conducted to examine exposure follow-up policies and responsibilities in large teaching hospitals across Canada.

Results: A total of 924 exposures with known patient sources were reported betwee January 1989 and December 1993. HIV and HBV screening was obtained for 67.9% and 87.6% of patients assessed as at low risk and 82.3% and 92.2% of thos assessed as at high risk for infection, respectively. Two previously unknown HIV-seropositive patients were identified, one of whom had been classified as at low risk (one of 530 [0.19%] patients at low risk who underwent screening]. Primary reasons for screening being missed were patient discharge (46.3%) or communications problems (18.0%). The requirement for informed written consent before HIV screening accounted for the difference in completed HIV and BV screens. Results if the hospital survey indicated tat 40.8% of Canadian hospitals follow up all patients who are involved in blood exposures; however, most hospitals still rely on the physician to obtain consent (87.6%).

Conclusions: Use of ICPs to screen patients involved in staff blood exposures during regular hours may be the most efficient method of follow-up, particularly if supplemented by a backup team of health professionals on nights and weekends. Although screening all patients for HBV/HIV may detect patients with undisclosed high-risk behaviors, institutions must decide whether the practice is cost-effective in areas of low prevalence.

References (25)

  • S Miller

    A sample protocol for HIV counselling and testing

    J Nurse Midwifery

    (1989)
  • DC Anderson et al.

    Preventing needlestick injuries

    Br Med J

    (1991)
  • J Jager et al.

    Rates of needle-stick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital

    N Engl J Med

    (1988)
  • C Linnemann et al.

    Effect of educational programs, rigid sharps containers and universal programs on reported needlestick injuries in healthcare workers

    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol

    (1991)
  • K Henry et al.

    Human immunodeficiency virus antibody testing, a description of practices and policies at U.S.

  • M Noble et al.

    Informed consent to HIV antibody testing

    Can Med Assoc J

    (1991)
  • M Decker

    The use of HIV antibody testing by physicians

    JAMA

    (1988)
  • C Dyer

    Another judgment on testing for HIV without consent

    Br Med J

    (1988)
  • I Grant

    Consensus on HIV testing

    Br Med J

    (1988)
  • CO Williams et al.

    Role of infection control practitioners in human immunodeficiency virus testing

    AJIC Am J Infect Control

    (1993)
  • CE Lewis et al.

    The HIV-testing policies of U.S. hospitals

    JAMA

    (1990)
  • Canadian Hospital Association

    Guide to policies for health care facilities and agencies—bloodborne pathogens, especially human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV)

  • View full text