The Medical journal of Australia · 1997
Universal precautions: attitudes of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Richards M J, Jenkin G A, Johnson P D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To survey the attitudes of a group of Australasian anaesthetists to the risks of bloodborne infections, and their understanding of Universal Precautions.
DESIGN: A questionnaire survey.
SETTING: A conference on health risks to anaesthetists in August 1995.
PARTICIPANTS: 162 Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists.
RESULTS: Two-thirds of anaesthetists favoured preoperative HIV and hepatitis B and C testing; they rarely took "risk" histories from patients preoperatively. Only 37% always wore gloves while administering anaesthetics, and 67% reported they resheathed needles. Thirty-nine per cent had had needlestick injuries in the preceding 12 months; 43% did not always report them. The perceived needlestick accident rate was 1 in 1300 anaesthetics. Most (90%) were immunised against hepatitis B, but 20% of these had never had their serological response checked. Twelve per cent of anaesthetists had had occupational exposure to HIV. A high proportion of the anaesthetists understood the principles of Universal Precautions, but only half of them believed these to be practical.
CONCLUSIONS: The current situation of Australasian anaesthetists not complying with Universal Precautions and not taking a risk history for bloodborne pathogens may carry the greatest risk of accidental infection.
DESIGN: A questionnaire survey.
SETTING: A conference on health risks to anaesthetists in August 1995.
PARTICIPANTS: 162 Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists.
RESULTS: Two-thirds of anaesthetists favoured preoperative HIV and hepatitis B and C testing; they rarely took "risk" histories from patients preoperatively. Only 37% always wore gloves while administering anaesthetics, and 67% reported they resheathed needles. Thirty-nine per cent had had needlestick injuries in the preceding 12 months; 43% did not always report them. The perceived needlestick accident rate was 1 in 1300 anaesthetics. Most (90%) were immunised against hepatitis B, but 20% of these had never had their serological response checked. Twelve per cent of anaesthetists had had occupational exposure to HIV. A high proportion of the anaesthetists understood the principles of Universal Precautions, but only half of them believed these to be practical.
CONCLUSIONS: The current situation of Australasian anaesthetists not complying with Universal Precautions and not taking a risk history for bloodborne pathogens may carry the greatest risk of accidental infection.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Acquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeAnesthesiologyAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaHepatitis BHepatitis B VaccinesHepatitis CHumansMass ScreeningNeedlestick InjuriesNew ZealandOccupational DiseasesPopulation SurveillanceProtective DevicesRisk AssessmentSerologic TestsSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversal Precautions