Modern concepts of treatment and prevention of chemical injuries.

Chemical injuries are commonly encountered following exposure to acids and alkali, including hydrofluoric acid, formic acid, anhydrous ammonia, cement, and phenol. Other specific agents that cause chemical burns include white phosphorus, elemental metals, nitrates, hydrocarbons, and tar. Even though there are more than 65,000 chemicals available on the market, and an estimated 60,000 new chemicals produced each year, the potential deleterious effects of these chemicals on humans are still unknown. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act contains extensive provisions for emergency planning and the rights of communities to know about toxic chemical releases. Since 1990, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has maintained an active, state-based Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES) system to describe the public health consequences risked by access to hazardous chemicals. Most chemical agents damage the skin by producing a chemical reaction rather than hyperthermic injury. Although some chemicals produce considerable heat as a result of an exothermic reaction when they come in contact with water, their ability to produce direct chemical changes on the skin accounts for the most skin injury. Specific chemical changes depend on the agent, including acids, alkalis, corrosives, oxidizing and reducing agents, desiccants, vesicants, and protoplasmic poisons. The concentration of toxic agent and duration of its contact primarily determine degree of skin destruction. Hazardous materials (hazmats) are substances that may injure life and damage the environment if improperly handled. HAZMAT accidents are particularly dangerous for responding personnel, who are in danger from the moment of arrival on the scene until containment of the accident. Consequently, the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act mandates community preparedness for dealing with hazmat accidents. Paramedics and members of the hazmat response team (usually firefighters) must work together to identify toxic chemicals and assess hazardous environments. The contingency plan for hazmat management can be divided into two parts: initiation of the site plan and evacuation. In coping with hazmat incidents, two distinct goals must be achieved concomitantly. First, hazmats must be contained, fire and explosions must be extinguished, and the site eventually must be cleaned. Second, those exposed to hazmats must be treated at the scene of contamination as well as in the hospital and rehabilitation setting.

Scientific basis for the selection of emergency medical examination gloves for emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel. An update.

The use of powder-free natural rubber or latex-free emergency medical examination gloves is especially important to emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel to avoid eliciting an allergic reaction in the latex sensitized patient. The majority of our emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and firefighters are now wearing powder-free emergency medical examination gloves that comply with the stringent codes and standards established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), while very few hospital emergency department personnel have been provided with NFPA-approved gloves. There are four well-defined goals of this report that will assist emergency medical services, fire departments, and hospitals in the selection and purchase of emergency medical examination gloves. First, we will review again the stringent regulations for emergency medical examination gloves that are outlined by the NFPA. This design and performance standard was devised by the NFPA to address protective clothing for emergency medical operations. The design and performance requirement of the emergency medical examination gloves were described in the NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 1997 Edition. As of September 2003, the emergency medical examination glove must meet the new design and performance requirements of emergency medical examination gloves discussed in NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 2003 Edition.

Devastating injuries in healthcare workers: description of the crisis and legislative solution to the epidemic of back injury from patient lifting.

The purpose of this report is to describe a crisis in healthcare, disabling back injuries in US healthcare workers. In addition, outlined is the proven solution of safe, mechanized, patient lifting, which has been shown to prevent these injuries. A "Safe Patient Handling--No Manual Lift" policy must be immediately instituted throughout this country. Such a policy is essential to halt hazardous manual patient lifting, which promotes needless disability and loss of healthcare workers, pain and risk of severe injury to patients, and tremendous waste of financial resources to employers and workers' compensation insurance carriers. Healthcare workers consistently rank among top occupations with disabling back injuries, primarily from manually lifting patients. Back injury may be the single largest contributor to the nursing shortage. Reported injuries to certified nursing assistants are three to four times that of registered nurses. A national healthcare policy for "Safe Patient Handling--No Manual Lift" is urgently needed to address this crisis. Body mechanics training is ineffective in prevention of back injury with patient lifting. Mandated use of mechanical patient lift equipment has proven to prevent most back injury to nursing personnel and reduce pain and injury to patients associated with manual lifting. With the national epidemic of morbid obesity in our country, innovative devices are available for use in emergency medical systems and hospitals for patient lifting and transfer without injury to hospital personnel. The US healthcare industry has not voluntarily taken measures necessary to reduce patient handling injury by use of mechanical lift devices. US healthcare workers who suffer disabling work-related back injuries are limited to the fixed, and often inadequate, relief which they may obtain from workers' compensation. Under workers' compensation law, healthcare workers injured lifting patients may not sue their employer for not providing mechanical lift equipment. Discarding healthcare workers disabled by preventable back injuries is an abuse which legislators must remedy. In addition, Medicare reimbursement policies must also be updated to allow the disabled community to purchase electrically operated overhead ceiling lifts. The US lags far behind countries with legislated manual handling regulations and "No Lifting" nursing policies. England and Australia have had "No Lifting" nursing policies in place since 1996 and 1998, respectively. The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) recognized a model in 2003 for reduction of back injuries to nursing staff in US healthcare facilities. Also in 2003, the American Nurses Association called for elimination of manual patient handling because it is unsafe and causes musculoskeletal injuries to nurses. The first state legislation for safe patient handling passed both houses in California but was vetoed by the Governor in September 2004. California and other states are preparing to (re)introduce legislation in January 2005. A national, industry-specific policy is essential to quell the outflow of nursing personnel to disability from manual patient lifting.

Scientific basis for selection of emergency medical examination gloves for emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel.

Dusting powders were first applied to gloves to facilitate donning. After 1980, manufacturers devised innovative techniques to manufacture gloves without dusting powders. It has been well documented that the powders on gloves present a health hazard to patients, as well as healthcare workers. First, these powders elicit tissue toxicity in every tissue in the body. Second, these powders serve as carriers of latex allergen and may precipitate a life-threatening allergic reaction in sensitized patients. These well-documented hazards of glove powders have caused a growing number of emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firelighters, and hospitals to abandon the use of powdered emergency medical examination gloves, using only powder-free gloves. Powder-free latex as well as non-latex gloves are now available to emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, and emergency department personnel. The use of powder-free natural rubber latex-free gloves is especially important to emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters, as well as emergency department personnel to avoid eliciting an allergic reaction in the latex sensitized patient. The majority of our emergency medical technicians, paramedics and firefighters are now wearing powder-free emergency medical examination gloves that comply with the stringent Codes and Standards established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), while very few hospital emergency department personnel have been provided with NFPA approved gloves. It is the purpose of this report to review the stringent regulations for emergency medical examination gloves that are outlined by the NFPA. This design and performance Standard was devised by the NFPA to address protective clothing for emergency medical operations. The design and performance requirement of the emergency medical examination gloves were described in the NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 1997 Edition. In September 2003, the emergency medical examination glove must meet the new design and performance requirements of emergency medical examination gloves discussed