Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet · 2005
The Thai Anesthesia Incidents Study (THAI Study) of anesthesia personnel hazard.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pulnitiporn Aksorn, Chau-in Waraporn, Klanarong Sireeluck, Thienthong Somboon, Inphum Panjai
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence, causes, management, outcomes and corrective strategies for personnel hazard in Thai Anesthesia Incidents Study (THAI Study).
MATERIAL AND METHOD: Personnel hazard incidents were extracted from the Thai Anesthesia Incidents Study (THAI Study) database conducted between February 1, 2003 and January 31, 2004 and analysed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Twenty-four incidents of personnel hazard were recorded. Majority of incidents occurred in nurse anesthetist (54.2%). Five incidents exposed to patient blood but no infection reported afterwards. Nineteen incidents (79.2%) were injury without contact to patients blood or body fluid. Most of them were injured by broken ampoules. One case needed to leave from work for a while due to hand dysfunction.
CONCLUSION: Personnel hazard incidence were quite low frequency because of under-report. One case of morbidity was reported. Universal precaution and post exposure prophylaxis tended to minimize the risk of infection.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: Personnel hazard incidents were extracted from the Thai Anesthesia Incidents Study (THAI Study) database conducted between February 1, 2003 and January 31, 2004 and analysed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Twenty-four incidents of personnel hazard were recorded. Majority of incidents occurred in nurse anesthetist (54.2%). Five incidents exposed to patient blood but no infection reported afterwards. Nineteen incidents (79.2%) were injury without contact to patients blood or body fluid. Most of them were injured by broken ampoules. One case needed to leave from work for a while due to hand dysfunction.
CONCLUSION: Personnel hazard incidence were quite low frequency because of under-report. One case of morbidity was reported. Universal precaution and post exposure prophylaxis tended to minimize the risk of infection.