Seroconversion rates among health care workers exposed to hepatitis C virus-contaminated body fluids: The University of Pittsburgh 13-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission to health care personnel (HCP) after exposure to a HCV-positive source has been reported to occur at an average rate of 1.8% (range, 0%-10%). We aimed to determine the seroconversion rate after exposure to HCV-contaminated body fluid in a major U.S. academic medical center. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis of a prospectively maintained database of reported occupational injuries occurring between 2002 and 2015 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center was performed. Data collected include type of injury and fluid, injured body part, contamination of sharps, resident physicians' involvement, and patients' hepatitis B virus (HBV), HCV, and HIV status. RESULTS: A total of 1,361 cases were included in the study. Most exposures were caused by percutaneous injuries (65.0%), followed by mucocutaneous injuries (33.7%). Most (63.3%) were injuries to the hand, followed by the face and neck (27.6%). Blood exposure accounted for 72.7%, and blood-containing saliva accounted for 3.4%. A total of 6.9% and 3.7% of source patients were coinfected with HIV and HBV, respectively. The HCV seroconversion rate was 0.1% (n = 2) because of blood exposure secondary to percutaneous injuries. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the largest and most recent cohort from a major U.S. academic medical center. The seroconversion rates among HCP exposed to HCV-contaminated body fluids was found to be lower than most of the data found in the literature.

Seroconversion rate among health care workers exposed to HIV-contaminated body fluids: The University of Pittsburgh 13-year experience.

BACKGROUND: The studies enumerating the risk of HIV transmission to health care workers (HCWs) as 0.3% after percutaneous exposure to HIV-positive blood, and 0.09% after a mucous membrane exposure, are weakened by dated literature. Our study aims to demonstrate the seroconversion rate after exposure to HIV-contaminated body fluids in a major academic center in the United States. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of reported occupational injuries occurring between 2002 and 2015 at an academic medical center was analyzed. Data collected included the type of injury, injured body part, type of fluid, contamination of sharps, involvement of resident physicians, use of postexposure prophylaxis, and patients' HIV, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus status. RESULTS: A total of 266 cases were included in the study. Most exposures were caused by percutaneous injuries (52.6%), followed by 43.2% mucocutaneous injuries. Of the injuries, 52.6% were to the hand and 33.5% to the face and neck. Blood exposure accounted for 64.3% of all cases. Of the patients, 21.1% received postexposure prophylaxis. None of the HCWs exposed to HIV-contaminated body fluids seroconverted (seroconversion rate, 0%). CONCLUSIONS: HIV does not seem to be as easily transmitted by needlestick, laceration, or splash injuries as previously surmised. Further large-scale and multicenter studies are needed for a more accurate estimation of the risk of transmission of HIV in U.S. health care workers.

Establish the habit: influenza vaccination for health care personnel.

Influenza vaccination of health care personnel (HCP) is a patient safety issue, but the national rate is only 42%. Following an intervention in 2006-2007, HCP in a large health system were surveyed. Self-reported influenza vaccination rate was 61.6% overall, did not differ by race, education level, or employment status but was higher for older HCP (> or =50 years; p=.002). In logistic regression, the strongest predictor of vaccination was receiving influenza vaccine the previous year, although other factors were significantly associated for younger and older HCP groups. Establishing the influenza vaccination habit using age-based targeted messages may be the most effective way to increase rates for HCP without mandates.

Factorial design for improving influenza vaccination among employees of a large health system.

OBJECTIVE: As healthcare personnel (HCP) influenza vaccination becomes a quality indicator for healthcare facilities, effective interventions are needed. This study was designed to test a factorial design to improve HCP vaccination rates. DESIGN: A before-after trial with education, publicity, and free and easily accessible influenza vaccines used a factorial design to determine the effect of mobile vaccination carts and incentives on vaccination rates of HCP, who were divided into groups on the basis of their level of patient contact (ie, business and/or administrative role, indirect patient contact, and direct patient contact). SETTING: Eleven acute care facilities in a large health system. PARTICIPANTS: More than 26,000 nonphysician employees. RESULTS: Influenza vaccination rates increased significantly in most facilities and increased system-wide from 32.4% to 39.6% (P<.001). In the baseline year, business unit employee vaccination rates were significantly higher than among HCP with patient contact; rates did not differ significantly across groups in the intervention year. In logistic regression that accounted for demographic characteristics, intervention year, and other factors, the use of incentives and/or mobile carts that provided access to vaccine at the work unit significantly increased the likelihood of vaccination among HCP with direct and indirect patient contact, compared with control sites. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve vaccination rates are differentially effective among HCP with varying levels of patient contact. Mobile carts appear to remove access barriers, whereas incentives may motivate HCP to be vaccinated. Education and publicity may be sufficient for workers in business or administrative positions. Interventions tailored by worker type are likely to be most successful for improving HCP vaccination rates.

Self-reported influenza vaccination rates among health care workers in a large health system.

BACKGROUND: The national health care worker (HCW) influenza vaccination rate is only 42% despite recommendations that HCWs receive influenza vaccine to prevent influenza among patients. METHODS: Following an educational intervention to improve influenza vaccination in 6 facilities in a large health system (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center), surveys were mailed to 1200 nonphysician HCWs to determine factors related to influenza vaccination and inform the following year's intervention. HCWs were proportionally sampled with oversampling for minority HCWs, and analyses were weighted to adjust for the clustered nature of the data. RESULTS: Response rate was 61%. Influenza vaccination rates were 77% overall, 65% for minority HCWs and 80% for white HCWs (P = .02) for ever receiving vaccine; and 57% overall, 45% for minority HCWs and 60% for white HCWs (P = .009) for receiving vaccine in 2005-2006. In logistic regression, belief that getting vaccinated against influenza is wise, physician recommendation, and older age were associated with higher likelihood of vaccination, whereas minority race and good health were associated with lower likelihood of ever receiving influenza vaccine. CONCLUSION: To increase influenza vaccination, interventions should address HCWs' most important reasons for getting vaccinated: convenience and protecting themselves from influenza.

Determining foot and ankle impairments by the AMA fifth edition guides.

The fifth edition of the Guides has been criticized for its failure to provide a comprehensive, valid, reliable, unbiased, and evidenced-based system for rating impairments and the way in which workers' compensation systems use the ratings, resulting in inappropriate compensation [8]. The lower extremity chapter utilizes numerous functional and anatomic methods of assessment, as well as diagnosis-based estimates. Though this process of using multiple approaches to measure impairment increases the chances that an underlying physical impairment may be detected, it is time-consuming and may increase rating variability [9]. McCarthy et al studied the correlation between measures of impairment for patients with fractures of the lower extremity. They found that the anatomic approach of evaluation was better correlated than functional and diagnostic methods with measures of task performance based on direct observations as well as the patient's own assessment of activity limitation and disability. Also, muscle strength assessment as described in the Guides was a more sensitive measure of impairment than range of motion [9]. The most elusive part of the foot and ankle evaluation is the inability to capture the added impairment burden caused by pain. The assessment of pain is the most problematic part of any evaluation. Pain is considered and incorporated into the impairment ratings found in the foot and ankle section, as well as the other individual chapters. Chronic pain is often not adequately accounted for, however, and the examiner must evaluate permanent impairment from chronic pain separately. The examiner has the ability to increase the percentage of organ system impairment from 1% to 3% if there is pain-related impairment that increases the burden of illness slightly. If there is significant pain-related impairment, a formal pain assessment is performed. Chapter 18 provides guidance in making these determinations. Impairments for Complex Regional Pain syndrome (CRPS), type 1 (reflex sympathetic dystrophy), and CRPS, type 2 (causalgia) should incorporate the use of a formal pain assessment in addition to the standard methods of assessment. The formal pain evaluation relies mostly on self-reports from the individual and is most heavily weighted for ADL deficits. The physician must make assessments of the individual's pain behavior and credibility for this evaluation. The formal pain assessment classifies the pain-related impairment into categories of mild, moderate, moderately severe, or severe and determines whether this impairment is ratable or not. These categories do not have impairment percentages associated with them. The individual's symptoms or presentation should match known conditions or syndromes in order to be ratable. If not ratable, the examiner should report that the individual has apparent impairment that is not ratable on the basis of current medical knowledge. In the end, pain evaluations are used administratively and, depending on the situation, may be given equal weight with the standard evaluation or may be totally disregarded.