The national study to prevent blood exposure in paramedics: rates of exposure to blood
- 327 Downloads
The purpose of this analysis is to present incidence rates of exposure to blood among paramedics in the United States by selected variables and to compare all percutaneous exposure rates among different types of healthcare workers.
A survey on blood exposure was mailed in 2002–2003 to a national sample of paramedics. Results for California paramedics were analyzed with the national sample and also separately.
The incidence rate for needlestick/lancet injuries was 100/1,000 employee-years [95% confidence interval (CI), 40–159] among the national sample and 26/1,000 employee-years (95% CI, 15–38) for the California sample. The highest exposure rate was for non-intact skin, 230/1,000 employee-years (95% CI, 130–329). The rate for all exposures was 465/1,000 employee-years (95% CI, 293–637). California needlestick/lancet rates, but not national, were substantially lower than rates in earlier studies of paramedics. Rates for all percutaneous injuries among paramedics were similar to the mid to high range of rates reported for most hospital-based healthcare workers.
Paramedics in the United States are experiencing percutaneous injury rates at least as high as, and possibly substantially higher than, most hospital-based healthcare workers, as well as substantially higher rates of exposure to blood on non-intact skin.
KeywordsParamedics Needlestick Blood exposure Survey Incidence Occupational health
This study was supported by cooperative agreement number U01 OH04266-01 from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2001) Updated U.S. Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HBV, HVC, and HIV and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis. MMWR 50(No. RR-11):1–52Google Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control, Prevention (CDC) (2003) Exposure to Blood. What healthcare personnel need to know. Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2005) Updated U.S. Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HIV and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis. MMWR 54(No. RR-9):1–17Google Scholar
- Gershon RRM, Vlahov D, Kelen G et al (1995) Review of accidents/injuries among emergency medical services workers in Baltimore, Maryland. Prehosp Disaster Med 10:14–18Google Scholar
- Hooper J, Charney W (2005) Creation of a safety culture, reducing workplace injuries in a rural hospital setting. AAOHN J 53:394–398Google Scholar
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2002) State-by-state provisions of state needle safety legislation (revised June 2002) in chronological order. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/bbp/ndl-law-1.html#ca. Accessed 26 May 2006
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Bloodborne pathogens and needlestick prevention, OSHA standards. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/bloodbornepathogens/index.html. Accessed 19 June 2007
- Visser L (2006) Toronto hospital reduces sharps injuries by 80%, eliminates blood collection injuries. Healthc Q 9:68–70Google Scholar
- Woodruff BA, Moyer LA, O’Rourke KM, et al. (1993) Blood exposure and the risk of hepatitis B virus infection in firefighters. J Occup Med 35:1048–1054. Erratum in (1995) J Occup Environ Med 37:193Google Scholar