- Email: [email protected]
Hydrogen Peroxide Exposure from Spraying Patient Privacy Curtains
S98
Poster Abstracts / American Journal of Infection Control 42 (2014) S29-S166
protection was the lack of accessibility 53%; not a priority in an emergency (47%) or not necessary (27%). 53% reported that face protection is available in or just outside the patient’s room. 70% wanted it available in or just outside the room. 37% reported they would use it if it were more accessible and 35% reported being in a situation in which they regretted not wearing face protection while suctioning. LESSON LEARNED: Access to face protection supplies is inconsistent within our hospital. We learned we need to identify standard locations to store masks and eye protection, as improved accessibility may increase use by staff. Most staff would like face protection to be available either inside or directly outside of the room. Continuing education is needed regarding situations in which face protection is indicated for standard precautions.
Publication Number 8-232 Hydrogen Peroxide Exposure from Spraying Patient Privacy Curtains Lewis Johnson CIH, Industrial Hygienist, Epidemiology/Infection Prevention, Lee Memorial Health Service ISSUE: A 3% hydrogen peroxide spray has been shown to be effective in disinfecting privacy curtains, and it is commonly used for this purpose. Hydrogen peroxide is a potential eye, upper respiratory and skin irritant presenting occupational health concerns for the employees administering this spray. Hydrogen peroxide has good warning properties to deter excessive exposure, but the permitted exposure level for hydrogen peroxide is also quite low at 1 part per million. PROJECT: The intent of this Project is to determine employee exposure to hydrogen peroxide while spraying curtains. Employee exposure monitoring was conducted using diffusion and pumpstroke colorimetric tubes. Diffusion samplers were worn on employee lapels for an entire shift. Pump-stroke samples were collected from the employee’s breathing zone initiating with curtain spraying, and continuing for as long as necessary to complete the required five pump strokes. Sampling was conducted on different employees and in different facilities to address potential variation in techniques and procedures. RESULTS: Sample Results were all non-detected (<0.1 parts per million for the stroke pump, < 0.5 parts per million for the diffusion sampler). Sampling of the breathing zone with a particle counter did not indicate an elevation of droplets in the breathing zone during spraying. The actual time spent spraying is a very small part of the overall work, resulting in extended periods of no exposure,
lowering the shift time weighted average exposure to well below the permitted exposure limits. LESSON LEARNED: Routine spraying of privacy curtains with 3% hydrogen peroxide conducted as sampled does not result in an employee exposure above the permitted exposure level of 1.0 part per million for hydrogen peroxide.
Publication Number 8-233 Patient Perspectives and Opinions on Influenza Vaccine Requirements Owen Simwale PhD, MPH, Infection Preventionist, Lock Haven Hospital BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: A growing number of healthcare institutions have heed to these professional recommendations, which are largely based on sound scientific evidence, and have implemented policies requiring eligible employees to get annual influenza vaccination. However, no such mandates, to our knowledge, have invoked opinions, concerns and voices of patients regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccination and utility of vaccinating employees or requiring employees to get annual vaccination, in promoting patient safety. METHODS: In this study we examined what patients (or their proxy’s) think about influenza vaccines, whether or not the healthcare worker attending to them is vaccinated and how they think hospitals ought to handle unvaccinated healthcare personnel. An anonymous survey was sent to 12 long term care facilities across Pennsylvania to elicit what proxy’s of nursing home residents think about influenza vaccines, whether they care being attended to by unvaccinated personnel. RESULTS: 458 surveys were completed and returned for analysis. Two thirds of respondents were relatives of residents while a third were legal guardians. While only 62% of respondents said influenza vaccinations are effective for preventing influenza, an overwhelming majority (94%) said they would prefer to be attended to vaccinated healthcare worker. More than half (73%) of respondents said healthcare workers should be required to get annual influenza vaccination while 27% said vaccination should be only be recommended or encouraged. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study, to our knowledge, that demonstrates that patients and their relatives support influenza vaccination of healthcare personal and that most patients, if given a choice, would rather be taken care of by vaccinated healthcare workers. These patient views validate policies that require employees to have annual influenza vaccination as a patient safety imperative.
APIC 41st Annual Educational Conference & International Meeting j Anaheim, CA j June 7-9, 2014
Poster Abstracts / American Journal of Infection Control 42 (2014) S29-S166
protection was the lack of accessibility 53%; not a priority in an emergency (47%) or not necessary (27%). 53% reported that face protection is available in or just outside the patient’s room. 70% wanted it available in or just outside the room. 37% reported they would use it if it were more accessible and 35% reported being in a situation in which they regretted not wearing face protection while suctioning. LESSON LEARNED: Access to face protection supplies is inconsistent within our hospital. We learned we need to identify standard locations to store masks and eye protection, as improved accessibility may increase use by staff. Most staff would like face protection to be available either inside or directly outside of the room. Continuing education is needed regarding situations in which face protection is indicated for standard precautions.
Publication Number 8-232 Hydrogen Peroxide Exposure from Spraying Patient Privacy Curtains Lewis Johnson CIH, Industrial Hygienist, Epidemiology/Infection Prevention, Lee Memorial Health Service ISSUE: A 3% hydrogen peroxide spray has been shown to be effective in disinfecting privacy curtains, and it is commonly used for this purpose. Hydrogen peroxide is a potential eye, upper respiratory and skin irritant presenting occupational health concerns for the employees administering this spray. Hydrogen peroxide has good warning properties to deter excessive exposure, but the permitted exposure level for hydrogen peroxide is also quite low at 1 part per million. PROJECT: The intent of this Project is to determine employee exposure to hydrogen peroxide while spraying curtains. Employee exposure monitoring was conducted using diffusion and pumpstroke colorimetric tubes. Diffusion samplers were worn on employee lapels for an entire shift. Pump-stroke samples were collected from the employee’s breathing zone initiating with curtain spraying, and continuing for as long as necessary to complete the required five pump strokes. Sampling was conducted on different employees and in different facilities to address potential variation in techniques and procedures. RESULTS: Sample Results were all non-detected (<0.1 parts per million for the stroke pump, < 0.5 parts per million for the diffusion sampler). Sampling of the breathing zone with a particle counter did not indicate an elevation of droplets in the breathing zone during spraying. The actual time spent spraying is a very small part of the overall work, resulting in extended periods of no exposure,
lowering the shift time weighted average exposure to well below the permitted exposure limits. LESSON LEARNED: Routine spraying of privacy curtains with 3% hydrogen peroxide conducted as sampled does not result in an employee exposure above the permitted exposure level of 1.0 part per million for hydrogen peroxide.
Publication Number 8-233 Patient Perspectives and Opinions on Influenza Vaccine Requirements Owen Simwale PhD, MPH, Infection Preventionist, Lock Haven Hospital BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: A growing number of healthcare institutions have heed to these professional recommendations, which are largely based on sound scientific evidence, and have implemented policies requiring eligible employees to get annual influenza vaccination. However, no such mandates, to our knowledge, have invoked opinions, concerns and voices of patients regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccination and utility of vaccinating employees or requiring employees to get annual vaccination, in promoting patient safety. METHODS: In this study we examined what patients (or their proxy’s) think about influenza vaccines, whether or not the healthcare worker attending to them is vaccinated and how they think hospitals ought to handle unvaccinated healthcare personnel. An anonymous survey was sent to 12 long term care facilities across Pennsylvania to elicit what proxy’s of nursing home residents think about influenza vaccines, whether they care being attended to by unvaccinated personnel. RESULTS: 458 surveys were completed and returned for analysis. Two thirds of respondents were relatives of residents while a third were legal guardians. While only 62% of respondents said influenza vaccinations are effective for preventing influenza, an overwhelming majority (94%) said they would prefer to be attended to vaccinated healthcare worker. More than half (73%) of respondents said healthcare workers should be required to get annual influenza vaccination while 27% said vaccination should be only be recommended or encouraged. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study, to our knowledge, that demonstrates that patients and their relatives support influenza vaccination of healthcare personal and that most patients, if given a choice, would rather be taken care of by vaccinated healthcare workers. These patient views validate policies that require employees to have annual influenza vaccination as a patient safety imperative.
APIC 41st Annual Educational Conference & International Meeting j Anaheim, CA j June 7-9, 2014