Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T10:54:49.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Occupational Hazards of Operating Opportunities for Improvement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Mark S. Davis
Mark S. Davis*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, DeKalb Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia
*
4453 Mount Paran Pkwy NW, Atlanta, GA 30327
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The emergence of hepatitis C virus compels us to refocus on protecting ourselves, our coworkers, and our families from potential illness, disability, or death. As bloodborne pathogens continue to evolve and mutate, the best option available is to prevent exposure. Surgeons have the opportunity to prevent the majority of exposures by utilizing currently available technology and knowledge. Surgeons should see, use, and evaluate a variety of safety-engineered devices, because their feedback can lead to improvements in technology. Education, communication, and access to safer technology will motivate surgeons to adopt safer behavior patterns. Provided with information and tools, we can change through self-motivation.

Type
Issues in Surgery
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 17 , Issue 10 , October 1996 , pp. 691 - 693
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1996 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Polish, LB, Tong, MJ, Co, RL, et al. Risk factors for hepatitis C virus infection among health care personnel in a community hospital. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:196–200.10.1016/0196-6553(93)90031-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Tokars, JI, Bell, DM, Culver, DH, et al. Percutaneous injuries during surgical procedures. JAMA 1992;267:2899–2904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Hamory, BH. Underreporting of needlestick injuries in a university hospital staff. Am J Infect Control 1983;11:174–177.10.1016/0196-6553(83)90077-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Wright, JG, McGeer, A. Human immunodeficiency virus transmission between surgeons and patients in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop 1993;297:272–281.10.1097/00003086-199312000-00045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Lanphear, BO, Linneman, CC, Cannon, CG. Hepatitis C virus infection in healthcare workers: risk of exposure and infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:745–750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Kao, JH, Chen, PJ, Lai, MY, Chen, DS. Superinfection of heterologous hepatitis C virus in a patient with chronic type C hepatitis. Gastroenterology 1993;105:583–587.10.1016/0016-5085(93)90737-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Andreone, P, Gramenzi, A, Cursaro, C, et al. Familial cluster of hepatitis C virus type 1. J Infect Dis 1994;170:1042–1043.10.1093/infdis/170.4.1042aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Kelen, GD, Green, GB, Purcell, RH, et al. Hepatitis B and hepatitis C in emergency room patients. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1399–1404.10.1056/NEJM199205213262105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Davis, MS. Sharps management in surgery. Infection Control & Sterilization Technology. 1995;1:411–414.Google Scholar
10. Robert, L, Short, L, Chamberland, M, et al. Interventions to reduce blood contacts and percutaneous injuries during gynecological surgical procedures. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:102–103. Abstract.Google Scholar
11. Doyle, PM, Alvi, S, Johanson, R. The effectiveness of double gloving in obstetrics and gynecology. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:83–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Chapman, S, Duff, P. Frequency of glove perforations and subsequent blood contact in association with selected obstetric surgical procedures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;168:1354–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Cohn, GM, Seifer, DB. Blood exposure in single versus double gloving during pelvic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:715–717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Chiarello, LA. Evaluation of needlestick technology: a perspective from the New York State pilot study experience. Advances in Exposure Prevention 1995;1:3–7,11.Google Scholar
15. Chiarello, LA. Practice forum: section of needlestick prevention devices: a conceptual framework for approaching product evaluation. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:386–395.10.1016/0196-6553(95)90271-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Thompson, JA. AORN's multisite clinical study of bloodborne exposures in OR personnel. AORN J 1996;63:428–433.10.1016/S0001-2092(06)63230-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed