Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-xnzsz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T19:54:40.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Precautionary Practices of Healthcare Workers Who Disinfect Medical and Dental Devices Using High-Level Disinfectants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2014

Scott A. Henn ,
James M. Boiano  and
Andrea L. Steege
Scott A. Henn*
Affiliation:
Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH 45226
James M. Boiano
Affiliation:
Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH 45226
Andrea L. Steege
Affiliation:
Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH 45226
*
Address correspondence to Scott A. Henn, MS, CIH, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, R-19, Cincinnati, OH 45226 (shenn@cdc.gov).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;00(0): 1–6

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , February 2015 , pp. 180 - 185
Copyright
© 2014 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Food and Drug Administration. FDA-cleared sterilants and high-level disinfectants with general claims for processing reusable medical and dental devices—March 2009; 2009.Google Scholar
2. Fowler, JF Jr. Allergic contact dermatitis from glutaraldehyde exposure. J Occup Med 1989;31:852–853.Google Scholar
3. Nethercott, JR, Holness, DL, Page, E. Occupational contact dermatitis due to glutaraldehyde in health care workers. Contact dermatitis 1988;18:193–196.Google Scholar
4. Waters, A, Beach, J, Abramson, M. Symptoms and lung function in health care personnel exposed to glutaraldehyde. Am J Ind Med 2003;43:196–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Bardazzi, F, Melino, M, Alagna, G, Veronesi, S. Glutaraldehyde dermatitis in nurses. Contact dermatitis 1986;14:319–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Hansen, KS. Glutaraldehyde occupational dermatitis. Contact dermatitis 1983;9:81–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Di Stefano, F, Siriruttanapruk, S, McCoach, J, Burge, PS. Glutaraldehyde: an occupational hazard in the hospital setting. Allergy 1999;54:1105–1109.Google Scholar
8. Gannon, PF, Bright, P, Campbell, M, O'Hickey, SP, Burge, PS. Occupational asthma due to glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde in endoscopy and x ray departments. Thorax 1995;50:156–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Dimich-Ward, H, Wymer, ML, Chan-Yeung, M.. Respiratory health survey of respiratory therapists. Chest 2004;126:1048–1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Fujita, H, Ogawa, M, Endo, Y. A case of occupational bronchial asthma and contact dermatitis caused by ortho-phthalaldehyde exposure in a medical worker. J Occup Health 2006;48:413–416.Google Scholar
11. Cristofari-Marquand, E, Kacel, M, Milhe, F, Magnan, A, Lehucher-Michel, MP. Asthma caused by peracetic acid-hydrogen peroxide mixture. J Occup Health 2007;49:155–158.Google Scholar
12. Nayebzadeh, A. The effect of work practices on personal exposure to glutaraldehyde among health care workers. Ind Health 2007;45:289–295.Google Scholar
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Glutaraldehyde—occupational hazards in hospitals. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 2001-115; 2011.Google Scholar
14. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Best practices for the safe use of glutarladehyde in health care. Washington DC: US Department of Labor, 2006.Google Scholar
15. Steege, AL, Boiano, JM, Sweeney, MH. NIOSH health and safety practices survey of healthcare workers: training and awareness of employer safety procedures. Am J Ind Med 2014;57:640–652.Google Scholar
16. Sas Institute, Inc. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 9. Cary, NC, 2013.Google Scholar
17. Distinguishing public health research and public health nonresearch. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/integrity/docs/cdc-policy-distinguishing-public-health-research-nonresearch.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed November 6, 2013.Google Scholar
18. Niven, KJM, Cherrie, JW, Spencer, J. Estimation of exposure from spilled glutaraldehyde solutions in a hospital setting. Ann Occup Hyg 1997;41:691–698.Google Scholar
19. Pisaniello, DL, Gun, RT, Tkaczuk, MN, Nitshcke, M, Crea, J. Safer use of glutaraldehyde. AORN J 1997;65:1114–1115.Google Scholar
20. Brullet, E, Ramirez-Armengol, JA, Campo, R. Cleaning and disinfection practices in digestive endoscopy in Spain: results of a national survey. Endoscopy 2001;33:864–868.Google Scholar
21. Cheung, RJ, Ortiz, D, DiMarino, AJ Jr. GI endoscopic reprocessing practices in the United States. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:362–368.Google Scholar
22. Gorse, GJ, Messner, RL. Infection control practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy in the United States: a national survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:289–296.Google Scholar
23. Rideout, K, Teschke, K, Dimich-Ward, H, Kennedy, SM. Considering risks to healthcare workers from glutaraldehyde alternatives in high-level disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2005;59:4–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Miyajima, K, Tabuchi, T, Kumagai, S. Occupational health of endoscope sterilization workers in medical institutions in Osaka Prefecture. J Occup Health 2006;48:169–175.Google Scholar
25. Fratila, O, Tantau, M. Cleaning and disinfection in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current status in Romania. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2006;15:89–93.Google Scholar