Search

IntroductionIndustry 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.MethodsCodability 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.ResultsIndustry 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.ConclusionsRecording usual I&O for retirees and improving linkages for reporting entities without patient access would improve I&O codability and research validity.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 riba-virin. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was conducted to evaluate airborne asbestos concentrations during ultra high speed (UHS) burnishing and wet-stripping of asbestos-containing resilient floor tile under two levels of floor care condition (poor and good). Airborne asbestos concentrations were measured by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) before and during each floor care maintenance procedure in the breathing zone of the custodial personnel. Airborne total fiber concentrations were also measured by phase contrast microscopy (PCM) for comparison with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cm3, 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA). This study shows that UHS burnishing and wet stripping of asbestos-containing resilient floor tile can result in elevated levels of airborneasbestos. UHS burnishing and wet-stripping produced similar increases in airborne asbestos concentrations when compared with baseline measurements. Approximately 99.5 percent of the asbestos structures were=/<5 mu m in length and were primarily fibers (92%) and, to a lesserextent, bundles, clusters, and matrices. None of the 8-hour TWA concentrations measured during wet-stripping exceeded the OSHA PEL; however, the PEL was exceeded by all of the 8-hour TWA concentrations measured during UHS burnishing. The elevated levels of total fibers were due to a non-asbestos containing powder generated during the burnishing of the floor tile. TEM analyses showed that the PCM analyses did not reflect the actual asbestos exposures during UHS burnishing. The interpretation of PCM data generated during floor care operations and other operation and maintenance activities should keep in mind the limitations of the light microscope as well as the analytical protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: 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.

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.

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.