Archive for: October, 2008
Finnish Fall Findings Focus on Floor Finishes
Sorry for the over-the-top alliteration, but I knew I couldn’t pass on the opportunity to use it when I attended a presentation on slip, trip, and fall (STF) hazards at the Association of Occupational Health Professionals in Healthcare (AOHP) annual meeting in September.
During the meeting, James W. Collins, PhD, a researcher at NIOSH, shared the latest information on STF, which is the No. 1 cause for workers’ compensation claim in healthcare.
Collins and colleagues used data from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health—they are the world’s experts on slip surfaces, he explained—and Liberty Mutual insurance company to design an STF prevention study that looked at seven shoe types and eight floor types in three hospitals.
Medical Environment Update—Healthcare workplace may pose hazards to reproductive health
Although it might not be the next topic featured in a most-dangerous-job reality TV show, a healthcare occupation comes with significant risks.
Some of those risks are potent drugs, which can work wonders when targeted toward patients’ ills but also present occupational hazards to caregivers, including adversely affecting the reproductive systems of those exposed.
With more healthcare being delivered outside of hospitals, workers in ambulatory settings are certainly not immune to workplace reproductive hazards.
Ask the expert—Spill response
Q: What is the standard volume for “large” and “small” spills?
A: Sometimes the rule of thumb on this question is that you can consider anything 1 gal or less a small spill, and everything above 1 gal a large spill. However, depending on what materials are in question, you might need to make adjustments.
Check your stopwatch to measure eyewash station needs
The topic of eyewash stations comes up a lot.
In general, the OSHA medical services and first aid standard requires eyewash stations in locations in which there is a risk of accidental exposure to corrosive or caustic materials.
There are definitely specific environments—high-level disinfection and processing areas for one—where I would be looking for eyewash stations, but only after looking at the chemicals involved.
Ask the expert—MSDS for household products
Q: Must my practice have material safety data sheets (MSDS) for household products used in the workplace?
A: This is a common question; the classic examples being glass cleaners such as Windex and correction fluid such as Wite-Out.
Ask the expert—Written plan
Q: Must a medical practice have a written hazard communication plan?
A: If hazardous chemicals are present in the workplace, OSHA requires a written hazard communication plan. The plan must include:
Ask the expert—Requirements for serologic testing
Q: For a worker who received the hepatitis B vaccine prior to June 2001 and did not have a titer, is the employer obligated to draw a titer now?
No. A November 9, 2005, OSHA letter of interpretation and the June 2001 CDC/USPHS guidelines for occupational bloodborne exposures say that periodic serologic testing to monitor antibody concentrations after completion of the three-dose series is not recommended.
Ask the expert—Clerical staff and HBV vaccination
Q: Are we in violation of OSHA by not offering the hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine to clerical and administrative staff?
A: No, you are not violating OSHA. The bloodborne pathogens standard standard. defines occupational exposure as
Ask the expert—Who is covered under the standard?
Q: What workers are covered under the bloodborne pathogens standard?
A: Workers with occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens or other potentially infectious material are covered under the standard. To OSHA, occupational exposure “means
Ask the expert—Bloodborne pathogens and small medical practice exemption
Q: Is there a magic number of employees that exempts a medical practice from having to follow the OSHA bloodborne pathogens standard and safety needle rules?
A: That the OSHA bloodborne pathogens standard does not apply to small medical practices is a lingering misconception. But a January 20, 2004, OSHA letter of interpretation makes things perfectly clear:
