COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Factors Affecting Hesitancy Among US Nurses, March-June 2021.

Objectives. To characterize COVID-19 vaccine uptake and hesitancy among US nurses. Methods. We surveyed nurses in 3 national cohorts during spring 2021. Participants who indicated that they did not plan to receive or were unsure whether they planned to receive the vaccine were considered vaccine hesitant. Results. Among 32 426 female current and former nurses, 93% had been or planned to be vaccinated. After adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, and occupational variables, vaccine hesitancy was associated with lower education, living in the South, and working in a group care or home health setting. Those who experienced COVID-19 deaths and those reporting personal or household vulnerability to COVID-19 were less likely to be hesitant. Having contracted COVID-19 doubled the risk of vaccine hesitancy (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.85, 2.53). Reasons for hesitancy that were common among nurses who did not plan to receive the vaccine were religion/ethics, belief that the vaccine was ineffective, and lack of concern about COVID-19; those who were unsure often cited concerns regarding side effects or medical reasons or reported that they had had COVID-19. Conclusions. Vaccine hesitancy was unusual and stemmed from specific concerns. Public Health Implications. Targeted messaging and outreach might reduce vaccine hesitancy. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1620-1629. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307050).

American Frontline Healthcare Personnel's Access to and Use of Personal Protective Equipment Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) for U.S. healthcare personnel (HCP) at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with infection risk. METHODS: March-May 2020 survey of the national Nurses' Health Studies and the Growing Up Today study regarding self-reported PPE access, use, and reuse. COVID-19 endpoints included SARS-CoV-2 tests and COVID-19 status predicted from symptoms. RESULTS: Nearly 22% of 22,232 frontline HCP interacting with COVID-19 patients reported sometimes or always lacking PPE. Fifty percent of HCP reported not needing respirators, including 13% of those working in COVID-19 units. Lack of PPE was cross-sectionally associated with two-fold or greater odds of COVID-19 among those who interacted with infected patients. CONCLUSION: These data show the need to improve the U.S. infection prevention culture of safety when confronting a novel pathogen.

Prepregnancy handling of antineoplastic drugs and risk of miscarriage in female nurses.

PURPOSE: To examine the association betweenantineoplastic drug (AD) handling and risk of miscarriage. METHODS: Nurses' Health Study-3 participants self-reported AD administration and engineering controls (ECs) and personal protective equipment (PPE) use at baseline. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) of miscarriage in relation to baseline AD handling using multivariable Cox proportional regression. RESULTS: Overall, 2440 nurses reported 3327 pregnancies, with 550 (17%) ended in miscarriages. Twelve percent of nurses self-reported currently handling AD and 28% previously handling AD. Compared with nurses who never handled AD, nurses who handled AD at baseline had an adjusted HR of miscarriage of 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.64). This association was stronger after 12-weeks gestation (HR=2.39 [95% CI, 1.13-5.07]). Nurses who did not always use gloves had HR of 1.51 (95% CI, 0.91-2.51) compared with 1.19 (95% CI, 0.89-1.60) for those always using gloves; nurses who did not always use gowns had HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 0.95-1.83) compared with 1.19 (95% CI, 0.81-1.75) for nurses always using gowns. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a suggestive association between AD handling and miscarriage, particularly among nurses who did not consistently use PPE and EC with stronger associations for second trimester losses.

Development of Job Exposure Matrices to Estimate Occupational Exposure to Solar and Artificial Ultraviolet Radiation.

OBJECTIVES: Job exposure matrices (JEMs) are important tools for estimating occupational exposures in study populations where only information on industry and occupation (I&O) are available. JEMs The objective of this work was to create JEMs for solar and artificial ultraviolet radiation (UVR) using a US standardized coding scheme. METHODS: Using U.S. Census Bureau industry and occupation codes, separate lists of I&O pairs were developed for solar and artificial UVR by a panel of Certified Industrial Hygienists who assigned exposure ratings to I&O pairs with potential exposure. Parameters for exposure included prevalence (P) and frequency (F) for solar UVR and P, F, and intensity (I) for artificial UVR. Prevalence, or percent of all workers employed in an I&O pair who were exposed, was categorically rated: 0 to <1, 1 to <20; 20 to <80, and ≥80. Frequency of exposure, defined by the number of hours per week workers were exposed, was categorically rated: 0 to <5, 5 to <20, 20 to <35, and ≥35 h per week. For artificial UVR only, intensity of exposure was assigned three ratings: low, low with rare excursions, and >low under normal conditions. Discrepant ratings were resolved via consensus. RESULTS: After excluding I&O pairs assigned P and F ratings of 0 (solar UVR) and P, F, and I ratings of 0 (artificial UVR) from the JEM, 9206 I&O pairs were rated for solar UVR and 2010 I&O pairs for artificial UVR. For solar UVR, 723 (7.9% of all rated pairs) had ratings in the highest category for P and F; this group included 45 occupations in varied industries. Construction and extraction occupations represented most of the occupations (n = 20; 44%), followed by farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (n = 6; 13%). For artificial UVR, 87 I&O pairs (4.3% of all rated pairs) had maximum ratings for P, F, and I; these comprised a single occupation (welding, soldering, and brazing workers) in diverse industries. CONCLUSIONS: JEMs for solar and artificial UVR were developed for a broad range of I&O pairs in the US population and are available for use by researchers conducting occupational epidemiological studies.

Administration of antineoplastic drugs and fecundity in female nurses.

BACKGROUND: We examined the association between the administration of antineoplastic drugs (AD) and fecundity among female nurses. METHODS: AD administration and use of exposure controls (EC) such as gloves, gowns, and needleless systems were self-reported at baseline among 2649 participants of the Nurses' Health Study 3, who were actively attempting pregnancy. Every 6 months thereafter, the nurses reported the current duration of their pregnancy attempt. Multivariable accelerated failure time models were used to estimate time ratios (TR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for age, race, body mass index, smoking, marital status, hours of work, and other occupational risk factors. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) age and BMI at baseline were 30.7 years (4.7) and 26.0 kg/m2 (6.4). Forty-one percent of nurses reported ever administering AD; 30% only in the past and 11% currently. The former administration of AD (TR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.93-1.12) was unrelated to the ongoing duration of pregnancy attempt. Among nurses currently administering AD, those who had administered AD for 6 years and above had a 27% (95% CI, 6%-53%) longer duration of pregnancy attempt than nurses who never handled ADs in unadjusted analyses. This difference disappeared in multivariable analyses (TR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.85-1.21). 93% (n = 270) of the nurses currently administering ADs reported consistent use of EC. These nurses had a similar median duration of pregnancy attempt to those who never handled AD (TR = 1.00, 95% CI, 0.87-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of ADs did not appear to have an impact on fecundity in a cohort of nurses planning for pregnancy with a high prevalence of consistent ECs. Our results may not be generalizable to women who are less compliant with PPE use or with less availability to ECs. Therefore, it is possible that we did not observe an association between occupational exposure to AD and reduced fecundity because of lower exposure due to the more prevalent use of effective ECs.

Differences in Safety Climate Perception by Health Care Worker, Work Schedule, and Workplace Characteristics.

Safety climate has been associated with patient and health care worker safety and outcomes. However, few studies have examined how perceptions of workplace safety differ by worker, work schedule, and workplace characteristics. Data from 10 168 participants in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers were analyzed. Multivariable regression analyses examined associations among worker and workplace characteristics and items measuring 5 areas of workplace safety perception. Safety climate perception scores were higher (more positive) for dentists and for health care workers who were salaried, were self-employed, worked day shifts and shifts ⩽11 hours, and spent <76% of their time in patient care. A wide range of health care worker, work schedule, and workplace characteristics should be considered in analyses designed to evaluate safety climate and identify potential interventions to improve downstream safety outcomes.

CE: Original Research: Antineoplastic Drug Administration by Pregnant and Nonpregnant Nurses: An Exploration of the Use of Protective Gloves and Gowns.

: Background: Many antineoplastic (chemotherapeutic) drugs are known or probable human carcinogens, and many have been shown to be reproductive toxicants in cancer patients. Evidence from occupational exposure studies suggests that health care workers who have long-term, low-level occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs have an increased risk of adverse reproductive outcomes. It's recommended that, at minimum, nurses who handle or administer such drugs should wear double gloves and a nonabsorbent gown to protect themselves. But it's unclear to what extent nurses do. PURPOSE: This study assessed glove and gown use by female pregnant and nonpregnant nurses who administer antineoplastic drugs in the United States and Canada. METHODS: We used data collected from more than 40,000 nurses participating in the Nurses' Health Study 3. The use of gloves and gowns and administration of antineoplastic drugs within the past month (among nonpregnant nurses) or within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy (among pregnant nurses) were self-reported via questionnaire. RESULTS: Administration of antineoplastic drugs at any time during their career was reported by 36% of nonpregnant nurses, including 27% who reported administering these drugs within the past month. Seven percent of pregnant nurses reported administering antineoplastic drugs during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Twelve percent of nonpregnant nurses and 9% of pregnant nurses indicated that they never wore gloves when administering antineoplastic drugs, and 42% of nonpregnant nurses and 38% of pregnant nurses reported never using a gown. The percentage of nonpregnant nurses who reported not wearing gloves varied by type of administration: 32% of those who administered antineoplastic drugs only as crushed pills never wore gloves, compared with 5% of those who administered such drugs only via infusion. CONCLUSION: Despite longstanding recommendations for the safe handling of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs, many nurses-including those who are pregnant-reported not wearing protective gloves and gowns, which are considered the minimum protective equipment when administering such drugs. These findings underscore the need for further education and training to ensure that both employers and nurses understand the risks involved and know which precautionary measures will minimize such exposures.

Exploring respiratory protection practices for prominent hazards in healthcare settings.

The use of respiratory protection, an important component of personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare, is dependent on the hazard and environmental conditions in the workplace. This requires the employer and healthcare worker (HCW) to be knowledgeable about potential exposures and their respective protective measures. However, the use of respirators is inconsistent in healthcare settings, potentially putting HCWs at risk for illness or injury. To better understand respirator use, barriers, and influences, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers provided an opportunity to examine self-reported use of respirators and surgical masks for targeted hazards. The hazards of interest included aerosolized medications, antineoplastic drugs, chemical sterilants, high-level disinfectants, influenza-like illness (ILI), and surgical smoke. Of the 10,383 HCWs who reported respiratory protection behaviors, 1,904 (18%) reported wearing a respirator for at least one hazard. Hazard type, job duties, site characteristics, and organizational factors played a greater role in the likelihood of respirator use than individual factors. The proportion of respirator users was highest for aerosolized medications and lowest for chemical sterilants. Most respondents reported using a surgical mask for at least one of the hazards, with highest use for surgical smoke generated by electrosurgical techniques and ILI. The high proportion of respirator non-users who used surgical masks is concerning because HCWs may be using a surgical mask in situations that require a respirator, specifically for surgical smoke. Improved guidance on hazard recognition, risk evaluation, and appropriate respirator selection could potentially help HCWs better understand how to protect themselves at work.

Codability of industry and occupation information from cancer registry records: Differences by patient demographics, casefinding source, payor, and cancer type.

INTRODUCTION: Industry and occupation (I&O) information collected by cancer registries is useful for assessing associations among jobs and malignancies. However, systematic differences in I&O availability can bias findings. METHODS: Codability by patient demographics, payor, identifying (casefinding) source, and cancer site was assessed using I&O text from first primaries diagnosed 2011-2012 and reported to California Cancer Registry. I&O were coded to a U.S. Census code or classified as blank/inadequate/unknown, retired, or not working for pay. RESULTS: Industry was codable for 37% of cases; 50% had "unknown" and 9% "retired" instead of usual industry. Cases initially reported by hospitals, covered by preferred providers, or with known occupational etiology had highest codable industry; cases from private pathology laboratories, with Medicaid, or diagnosed in outpatient settings had least. Occupation results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Recording usual I&O for retirees and improving linkages for reporting entities without patient access would improve I&O codability and research validity.

Effects of organizational safety practices and perceived safety climate on PPE usage, engineering controls, and adverse events involving liquid antineoplastic drugs among nurses.

Antineoplastic drugs pose risks to the healthcare workers who handle them. This fact notwithstanding, adherence to safe handling guidelines remains inconsistent and often poor. This study examined the effects of pertinent organizational safety practices and perceived safety climate on the use of personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and adverse events (spill/leak or skin contact) involving liquid antineoplastic drugs. Data for this study came from the 2011 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers which included a sample of approximately 1,800 nurses who had administered liquid antineoplastic drugs during the past seven days. Regression modeling was used to examine predictors of personal protective equipment use, engineering controls, and adverse events involving antineoplastic drugs. Approximately 14% of nurses reported experiencing an adverse event while administering antineoplastic drugs during the previous week. Usage of recommended engineering controls and personal protective equipment was quite variable. Usage of both was better in non-profit and government settings, when workers were more familiar with safe handling guidelines, and when perceived management commitment to safety was higher. Usage was poorer in the absence of specific safety handling procedures. The odds of adverse events increased with number of antineoplastic drugs treatments and when antineoplastic drugs were administered more days of the week. The odds of such events were significantly lower when the use of engineering controls and personal protective equipment was greater and when more precautionary measures were in place. Greater levels of management commitment to safety and perceived risk were also related to lower odds of adverse events. These results point to the value of implementing a comprehensive health and safety program that utilizes available hazard controls and effectively communicates and demonstrates the importance of safe handling practices. Such actions also contribute to creating a positive safety climate.

Exposure control practices for administering nitrous oxide: A survey of dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants.

Engineering, administrative, and work practice controls have been recommended for many years to minimize exposure to nitrous oxide during dental procedures. To better understand the extent to which these exposure controls are used, the NIOSH Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers was conducted among members of professional practice organizations representing dentists, dental hygienists and dental assistants. The anonymous, modular, web-based survey was completed by 284 dental professionals in private practice who administered nitrous oxide to adult and/or pediatric patients in the seven days prior to the survey. Use of primary engineering controls (i.e., nasal scavenging mask and/or local exhaust ventilation (LEV) near the patient's mouth) was nearly universal, reported by 93% and 96% of respondents who administered to adult (A) and pediatric (P) patients, respectively. However, adherence to other recommended precautionary practices were lacking to varying degrees, and were essentially no different among those administering nitrous oxide to adult or pediatric patients. Examples of work practices which increase exposure risk, expressed as percent of respondents, included: not checking nitrous oxide equipment for leaks (41% A; 48% P); starting nitrous oxide gas flow before delivery mask or airway mask was applied to patient (13% A; 12% P); and not turning off nitrous oxide gas flow before turning off oxygen flow to the patient (8% A; 7% P). Absence of standard procedures to minimize worker exposure to nitrous oxide (13% of all respondents) and not being trained on safe handling and administration of nitrous oxide (3%) were examples of breaches of administrative controls which may also increase exposure risk. Successful management of nitrous oxide emissions should include properly fitted nasal scavenging masks, supplemental LEV (when nitrous oxide levels cannot be adequately controlled using nasal masks alone), adequate general ventilation, regular inspection of nitrous oxide delivery and scavenging equipment for leaks, availability of standard procedures to minimize exposure, periodic training, ambient air and exposure monitoring, and medical surveillance.

Precautionary practices for administering anesthetic gases: A survey of physician anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants.

Scavenging systems and administrative and work practice controls for minimizing occupational exposure to waste anesthetic gases have been recommended for many years. Anesthetic gases and vapors that are released or leak out during medical procedures are considered waste anesthetic gases. To better understand the extent recommended practices are used, the NIOSH Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers was conducted in 2011 among members of professional practice organizations representing anesthesia care providers including physician anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, and anesthesiologist assistants. This national survey is the first to examine self-reported use of controls to minimize exposure to waste anesthetic gases among anesthesia care providers. The survey was completed by 1,783 nurse anesthetists, 1,104 physician anesthesiologists, and 100 anesthesiologist assistants who administered inhaled anesthetics in the seven days prior to the survey. Working in hospitals and outpatient surgical centers, respondents most often administered sevoflurane and, to a lesser extent desflurane and isoflurane, in combination with nitrous oxide. Use of scavenging systems was nearly universal, reported by 97% of respondents. However, adherence to other recommended practices was lacking to varying degrees and differed among those administering anesthetics to pediatric (P) or adult (A) patients. Examples of practices which increase exposure risk, expressed as percent of respondents, included: using high (fresh gas) flow anesthesia only (17% P, 6% A), starting anesthetic gas flow before delivery mask or airway mask was applied to patient (35% P; 14% A); not routinely checking anesthesia equipment for leaks (4% P, 5% A), and using a funnel-fill system to fill vaporizers (16%). Respondents also reported that facilities lacked safe handling procedures (19%) and hazard awareness training (18%). Adherence to precautionary work practices was generally highest among nurse anesthetists compared to the other anesthesia care providers. Successful management of waste anesthetic gases should include scavenging systems, hazard awareness training, availability of standard procedures to minimize exposure, regular inspection of anesthesia delivery equipment for leaks, prompt attention to spills and leaks, and medical surveillance.

Secondhand smoke in the operating room? Precautionary practices lacking for surgical smoke.

BACKGROUND: Consensus organizations, government bodies, and healthcare organization guidelines recommend that surgical smoke be evacuated at the source by local exhaust ventilation (LEV) (i.e., smoke evacuators or wall suctions with inline filters). METHODS: Data are from NIOSH's Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers module on precautionary practices for surgical smoke. RESULTS: Four thousand five hundred thirty-three survey respondents reported exposure to surgical smoke: 4,500 during electrosurgery; 1,392 during laser surgery procedures. Respondents were mainly nurses (56%) and anesthesiologists (21%). Only 14% of those exposed during electrosurgery reported LEV was always used during these procedures, while 47% reported use during laser surgery. Those reporting LEV was always used were also more likely to report training and employer standard procedures addressing the hazards of surgical smoke. Few respondents reported use of respiratory protection. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings can be used to raise awareness of the marginal use of exposure controls and impediments for their use. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:1020-1031, 2016. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Predictors of adherence to safe handling practices for antineoplastic drugs: A survey of hospital nurses.

Despite growing awareness of the hazards of exposure to antineoplastic drugs (ADs), surveys continue to find incomplete adherence to recommended safe handling guidelines. A 2011 survey of healthcare workers presents an opportunity to examine factors associated with adherence among 1094 hospital nurses who administered ADs. Data for these hypothesis-generating analyses were taken from an anonymous, web-based survey of healthcare workers. Regression modeling was used to examine associations between a number of predictors (engineering controls, work practices, nurse perceptions, and nurse and hospital characteristics) and three outcomes reported by nurses: use of personal protective equipment (PPE); activities performed with gloves previously worn to administer ADs; and spills of ADs. Adherence to safe handling guidelines was not universal, and AD spills were reported by 9.5% of nurses during the week prior to the survey. Familiarity with safe handling guidelines and training in safe handling were associated with more reported PPE use. Nurse-perceived availability of PPE was associated with more reported PPE use and lower odds of reported spills. Use of closed system drug-transfer devices and luer-lock fittings also decreased the odds of self-reported AD spills, while more frequent AD administration increased the risk. AD administration frequency was also associated with performing more activities with gloves previously worn to administer ADs, and nurse perception of having adequate time for taking safety precautions with fewer such activities. The results suggest that training and familiarity with guidelines for safe handling of ADs, adequate time to adhere to guidelines, and availability of PPE and certain engineering controls are key to ensuring adherence to safe handling practices. Further assessment of training components and engineering controls would be useful for tailoring interventions targeting these areas.

Use of Bloodborne Pathogens Exposure Control Plans in Private Dental Practices: Results and Clinical Implications of a National Survey.

Dental healthcare workers (DHWs) are at risk for occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens (BBPs). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration Bloodborne Pathogens Standard requires employers to have a written exposure control plan (ECP) detailing methods and means to reduce and manage occupational BBP exposures. Because little information is available on whether ECPs are created and used, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Organization for Safety, Asepsis and Prevention conducted an online survey to determine if dental practices had an ECP, whether present ECPs had the necessary components, and if impediments existed to prevent having an ECP in place. Respondents were primarily from nonfranchised practices (69%) and dentists who owned the practice (63%). Seventy-two percent of survey participants had an ECP, and 20% were unaware of any federal requirements for an ECP prior to the survey. Engineering controls were used by many practices, although the type varied. Fifteen percent of practices did not offer the hepatitis B vaccine for employees. The survey revealed many dental practices were unaware of or were lacking required elements of the ECP. Findings from this survey indicate DHWs would benefit from increased education regarding methods to prevent occupational exposures to BBPs.

Ethylene Oxide and Hydrogen Peroxide Gas Plasma Sterilization: Precautionary Practices in U.S. Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate precautionary practices and extent of use of ethylene oxide (EtO) and hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP) sterilization systems, including use of single chamber EtO units. DESIGN: Modular, web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Members of professional practice organizations who reported using EtO or HPGP in the past week to sterilize medical instruments and supplies. Participating organizations invited members via email which included a hyperlink to the survey. METHODS: Descriptive analyses were conducted including simple frequencies and prevalences. RESULTS: A total of 428 respondents completed the module on chemical sterilants. Because most respondents worked in hospitals (87%, n=373) analysis focused on these workers. Most used HPGP sterilizers (84%, n=373), 38% used EtO sterilizers, with 22% using both. Nearly all respondents using EtO operated single chamber units (94%, n=120); most of them reported that the units employed single use cartridges (83%, n=115). Examples of where engineering and administrative controls were lacking for EtO include: operational local exhaust ventilation (7%; n=114); continuous air monitoring (6%; n=113); safe handling training (6%; n=142); and standard operating procedures (4%; n=142). Examples of practices which may increase HPGP exposure risk included lack of standard operating procedures (9%; n=311) and safe handling training (8%; n=312). CONCLUSIONS: Use of precautionary practices was good but not universal. EtO use appears to have diminished in favor of HPGP which affords higher throughput and minimal regulatory constraints. Separate EtO sterilization and aeration units were still being used nearly one year after U.S. EPA prohibited their use.

Precautionary Practices of Respiratory Therapists and Other Health-Care Practitioners Who Administer Aerosolized Medications.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory therapists (RTs) and other health-care workers are potentially exposed to a variety of aerosolized medications. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers describes current exposure control practices and barriers to using personal protective equipment during administration of selected aerosolized medications. METHODS: An anonymous, multi-module, web-based survey was conducted among members of health-care professional practice organizations representing RTs, nurses, and other health-care practitioners. A module on aerosolized medications included submodules for antibiotics (amikacin, colistin, and tobramycin), pentamidine, and ribavirin. RESULTS: The submodules on antibiotics, pentamidine, and ribavirin were completed by 321, 227, and 50 respondents, respectively, most of whom were RTs. The relatively low number of ribavirin respondents precluded meaningful interpretation of these data and may reflect the rare use of this drug. Consequently, analysis focused on pentamidine, classified by NIOSH as a hazardous drug, and the antibiotics amikacin, colistin, and tobramycin, which currently lack authoritative safe handling guidelines. Respondents who administered pentamidine were more likely to adhere to good work practices compared with those who administered the antibiotics. Examples included training received on safe handling procedures (75% vs 52%), availability of employer standard procedures (82% vs 55%), use of aerosol delivery devices equipped with an expiratory filter (96% vs 53%) or negative-pressure rooms (61% vs 20%), and always using respiratory protection (51% vs 13%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of safe handling guidelines for pentamidine, implementation was not universal, placing workers, co-workers, and even family members at risk of exposure. Although the antibiotics included in this study lack authoritative safe handling guidelines, prudence dictates that appropriate exposure controls be used to minimize exposure to the antibiotics and other aerosolized medications. Employers and employees share responsibility for ensuring that precautionary measures are taken to keep exposures to all aerosolized medications as low as practicable.

Adherence to Precautionary Guidelines for Compounding Antineoplastic Drugs: A Survey of Nurses and Pharmacy Practitioners.

Precautionary guidelines detailing standards of practice and equipment to eliminate or minimize exposure to antineoplastic drugs during handling activities have been available for nearly three decades. To evaluate practices for compounding antineoplastic drugs, the NIOSH Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers was conducted among members of professional practice organizations representing primarily oncology nurses, pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians. This national survey is the first in over 20 years to examine self-reported use of engineering, administrative, and work practice controls and PPE by pharmacy practitioners for minimizing exposure to antineoplastic drugs. The survey was completed by 241 nurses and 183 pharmacy practitioners who compounded antineoplastic drugs in the seven days prior to the survey. They reported: not always wearing two pairs of chemotherapy gloves (85%, 47%, respectively) or even a single pair (8%, 10%); not always using closed system drug-transfer devices (75%, 53%); not always wearing recommended gown (38%, 20%); I.V. lines sometimes/always primed with antineoplastic drug (19%, 30%); and not always using either a biological safety cabinet or isolator (9%, 15%). They also reported lack of: hazard awareness training (9%, 13%); safe handling procedures (20%, 11%); and medical surveillance programs (61%, 45%). Both employers and healthcare workers share responsibility for adhering to precautionary guidelines and other best practices. Employers can ensure that: workers are trained regularly; facility safe-handling procedures reflecting national guidelines are in place and support for their implementation is understood; engineering controls and PPE are available and workers know how to use them; and medical surveillance, exposure monitoring, and other administrative controls are in place. Workers can seek out training, understand and follow facility procedures, be role models for junior staff, ask questions, and report any safety concerns.

Precautionary practices of healthcare workers who disinfect medical and dental devices using high-level disinfectants.

BACKGROUND High-level disinfectants (HLDs) are used throughout the healthcare industry to chemically disinfect reusable, semicritical medical and dental devices to control and prevent healthcare-associated infections among patient populations. Workers who use HLDs are at risk of exposure to these chemicals, some of which are respiratory and skin irritants and sensitizers. OBJECTIVE To evaluate exposure controls used and to better understand impediments to healthcare workers using personal protective equipment while handling HLDs. DESIGN Web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS A targeted sample of members of professional practice organizations representing nurses, technologists/technicians, dental professionals, respiratory therapists, and others who reported handling HLDs in the previous 7 calendar days. Participating organizations invited either all or a random sample of members via email, which included a hyperlink to the survey. METHODS Descriptive analyses were conducted including simple frequencies and prevalences. RESULTS A total of 4,657 respondents completed the survey. The HLDs used most often were glutaraldehyde (59%), peracetic acid (16%), and ortho-phthalaldehyde (15%). Examples of work practices or events that could increase exposure risk included failure to wear water-resistant gowns (44%); absence of standard procedures for minimizing exposure (19%); lack of safe handling training (17%); failure to wear protective gloves (9%); and a spill/leak of HLD during handling (5%). Among all respondents, 12% reported skin contact with HLDs, and 33% of these respondents reported that they did not always wear gloves. CONCLUSION Findings indicated that precautionary practices were not always used, underscoring the importance of improved employer and worker training and education regarding HLD hazards.

Adherence to safe handling guidelines by health care workers who administer antineoplastic drugs.

The toxicity of antineoplastic drugs is well documented. Many are known or suspected human carcinogens where no safe exposure level exists. Authoritative guidelines developed by professional practice organizations and federal agencies for the safe handling of these hazardous drugs have been available for nearly three decades. As a means of evaluating the extent of use of primary prevention practices such as engineering, administrative and work practice controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), and barriers to using PPE, the National Institute for Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a web survey of health care workers in 2011. The study population primarily included members of professional practice organizations representing health care occupations which routinely use or come in contact with selected chemical agents. All respondents who indicated that they administered antineoplastic drugs in the past week were eligible to complete a hazard module addressing self-reported health and safety practices on this topic. Most (98%) of the 2069 respondents of this module were nurses. Working primarily in hospitals, outpatient care centers, and physician offices, respondents reported that they had collectively administered over 90 specific antineoplastic drugs in the past week, with carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel the most common. Examples of activities which increase exposure risk, expressed as percent of respondents, included: failure to wear nonabsorbent gown with closed front and tight cuffs (42%); intravenous (I.V.) tubing primed with antineoplastic drug by respondent (6%) or by pharmacy (12%); potentially contaminated clothing taken home (12%); spill or leak of antineoplastic drug during administration (12%); failure to wear chemotherapy gloves (12%); and lack of hazard awareness training (4%). The most common reason for not wearing gloves or gowns was "skin exposure was minimal"; 4% of respondents, however, reported skin contact during handling and administration. Despite the longstanding availability of safe handling guidance, recommended practices are not always followed, underscoring the importance of training and education for employers and workers.