Article

Practice of universal precautions and risk of occupational blood-borne viral infection among Congolese health care workers

Department of Environmental Medicine, Kochi Medical School, Kochi University, Nankoku, Japan.
American journal of infection control (Impact Factor: 2.33). 05/2011; 40(1):68-70.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2011.01.021
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The extent of occupational injuries among health care workers in central Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is not documented. We sought to determine the incidence of percutaneous injury and exposure to blood and other body fluids in Congolese urban and rural hospitals in the previous year. Our data show high rates of percutaneous injury and exposure to blood and other body fluids, reflecting poor safety conditions for most Congolese health care workers.

Full-text

Available from: Toru Yoshikawa, Dec 17, 2013
0 Followers
 · 
185 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Exposure to hepatitis B virus (HBV) remains a serious risk to healthcare workers (HCWs) in endemic developing countries owing to the strong prevalence of HBV in the general and hospital populations, and to the high rate of occupational blood exposure. Routine HBV vaccination programs targeted to high-risk groups and especially to HCWs are generally considered as a key element of prevention strategies. However, the high rate of natural immunization among adults in such countries where most infections occur perinatally or during early childhood must be taken into account. We conducted a cross sectional study in 207 personnel of 4 occupational groups (medical, paramedical, cleaning staff, and administrative) in Niamey's National Hospital, Niger, in order to assess the prevalence of HBV markers, to evaluate susceptibility to HBV infection, and to identify personnel who might benefit from vaccination. The proportion of those who declared a history of occupational blood exposure ranged from 18.9% in the administrative staff to 46.9% in paramedical staff. Only 7.2% had a history of vaccination against HBV with at least 3 injections. Ninety two percent were anti-HBc positive. When we focused on170 HCWs, only 12 (7.1%) showed no biological HBV contact. Twenty six were HBsAg positive (15,3%; 95% confidence interval: 9.9%-20.7%) of whom 8 (32%) had a viral load >2000 IU/ml. The very small proportion of HCWs susceptible to HBV infection in our study and other studies suggests that in a global approach to prevent occupational infection by bloodborne pathogens, a universal hepatitis B vaccination of HCWs is not priority in these settings. The greatest impact on the risk will most likely be achieved by focusing efforts on primary prevention strategies to reduce occupational blood exposure. HBV screening in HCWs and treatment of those with chronic HBV infection should be however considered.
    PLoS ONE 09/2012; 7(9):e44442. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0044442 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Sharps injuries and the related risk of infections such as hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) represent one of the major occupational health risks for healthcare workers (HCWs).Literature ReviewAn overview of available data on the incidence of sharps injuries and the related HBV, HCV and HIV infections and ensuing costs is provided.ResultsLiterature reported incidence rates of sharps injuries ranging from 1.4 to 9.5 per 100 HCWs, resulting in a weighted mean of 3.7/100 HCWs per year. Sharps injuries were associated with infective disease transmissions from patients to HCWs resulting in 0.42 HBV infections, 0.05–1.30 HCV infections and 0.04–0.32 HIV infections per 100 sharps injuries per year. The related societal costs had a mean of €272, amounting to a mean of €1,966 if the source patient was HIV positive with HBV and HCV co-infections.Conclusion Sharps injuries remain a frequent threat amongst HCWs. The follow-up and treatment of sharps injuries and the deriving consequences represent a significant cost factor.
    Journal of Renal Care 03/2014; DOI:10.1111/jorc.12050
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Needlestick injuries from devices used for blood collection or for injections expose healthcare workers to the risk of blood borne infections such as hepatitis B and C, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Safety features such as shields or retractable needles can possibly contribute to the prevention of these injuries and it is important to evaluate their effectiveness. To determine the benefits and harms of safety medical devices aiming to prevent percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel versus no intervention or alternative interventions. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc and PsycINFO (until January 2014) and LILACS (until January 2012). We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) designs on the effect of safety engineered medical devices on needlestick injuries in healthcare staff. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We synthesized study results with a fixed-effect or random-effects model meta-analysis where appropriate. We included four RCTs with 1136 participants, two cluster-RCTs with 795 participants and 73,454 patient days, four CBAs with approximately 22,000 participants and seven ITS with an average of seven data points. These studies evaluated safe modifications of blood collection systems, intravenous (IV) systems, injection systems, multiple devices and sharps containers. The needlestick injury (NSI) rate in the control groups was estimated at about one to five NSIs per 1000 person-years. There was only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The risk of bias was high in most studies.In one ITS study that evaluated safe blood collection systems, NSIs decreased immediately after the introduction (effect size (ES) -6.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.5 to -4.2) and there was no clear evidence of an additional benefit over time (ES -1.2, 95% CI -2.5 to 0.1). Another ITS study used an outdated recapping shield.There was very low quality evidence that NSIs were reduced with the introduction of safe IV devices in two out of four studies but the other two studies showed no clear evidence of a trend towards a reduction. However, there was moderate quality evidence in four other studies that these devices increased the number of blood splashes where the safety system had to be engaged actively (relative risk (RR) 1.6, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.36).There was no clear evidence that the introduction of safe injection devices changed the NSI rate in two studies.The introduction of multiple safety devices showed a decrease in NSI in one study but not in another. The introduction of safety containers showed a decrease in NSI in one study but inconsistent results in two other studies.There was no evidence in the included studies about which type of device was better, for example shielding or retraction of the needle. For safe blood collection systems, we found very low quality evidence in one study that these decrease needlestick injuries (NSIs). For intravenous systems, we found very low quality evidence that they result in a decrease of NSI compared with usual devices but moderate quality evidence that they increase contamination with blood. For other safe injection needles, the introduction of multiple safety devices or the introduction of sharps containers the evidence was inconsistent or there was no clear evidence of a benefit. All studies had a considerable risk of bias and the lack of evidence of a beneficial effect could be due both to confounding and bias. This does not mean that these devices are not effective.Cluster-randomised controlled studies are needed to compare the various types of safety engineered devices for their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 03/2014; 3(3):CD009740. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009740.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor