Buy-back and ban semi-auto weapons in NZ

$7 per adult would buy back all semi-auto weapons 

Like all in New Zealand, my wife and I are stunned and saddened at the massacre at the Christchurch mosques 4 days ago.

Our hearts go out to the families of the 50 who were killed and the 50 who were wounded. We brought flowers to the Hamilton mosque on Sunday – and there were already thousands of bouquets and notes of support and love. “They are us” was palpable. It moved Jenny to tears.

We think, “This can’t have happened. Not in NZ.”  And it would not have happened if NZ had same gun laws as Australia.

It took the 1996 massacre in Australia for the government to swiftly enforce tougher gun laws. We need do same, swiftly.

The fair-price buy-back cost each Australian taxpayer $15. At 15,000 semi-auto rifles in NZ, we could do same for $7 per adult.

We cannot risk this happening again.

Less GHG with reusables over long-haul

Reusables reduce GHG 65% when long-haul transport is required.

Two Californian colleagues and I had our Lifecycle Carbon Footprint study published today confirming a significant 65% reduction in greenhouse gases when disposable sharps bins were replaced with reusables and long transport distances impacted both systems.

The study was conducted over a two-year period at a large five-hospital system in Loma Linda CA.

An earlier GHG Chicago study found reusables reduced sharps waste stream GHG by 84%. However the study’s sensitivity analysis found transport distances impacted results significantly and suggested the study be repeated in a scenario where transport distances between manufacturer and hospital were large.

In the Loma Linda study, mfg-hospital distances were several thousand km and hospital-plant distances were several hundred km. Under these conditions the study concluded:

  • Such distances lessen GHG differential between the systems
  • Reusable achieved significant GHG reductions
  • Transport & electricity cleanliness are key factors.
  • Lifespan of reusables has minimal effect on carbon footprint.
  • Procurement can significantly contribute to GHG strategies.
  • Reusables reduced GHG with minimal staff behavior-change.

Click here for Loma Linda study

1/2 Day seminar – Preventing Sharps Injuries

I’ve exciting news!

A major player has agreed to sponsor a 6-city Sharps Injury Seminar in US and Canada.

SI have not decreased as expected. The impact of safety engineered devices (SED) has plateaued and HCW are asking what more can they do?

Myself and two other passionate experts are determined to put SI back on the radar with 3 educational outcomes covering:

  1. Incidence and trends
  2. Impact on HCW
  3. Successful prevention strategies

The seminar is CEU accredited and will be held in Philadelphia, Chicago, Orlando, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.

Sponsorship has enabled a very low fee. Click here for your city and more details

Shall we do the sick (and non-sick) no Harm!

Survey Finds 4 in 10 Healthcare Professionals Work While Sick

A new study published in Nov 2017 Amer J Infect Control and highlighted by Infection Control Today found 41% of HCW continue to work while experiencing influenza-like symptoms.  

Pharmacists and Physicians had highest % (see below), and Long-term care workers had lowest (29%).

With higher numbers of older patients and immunocompromised patients (and risk to colleagues), the authors ask that healthcare facilities encourage staff to stay home while ill .

Reasons for continuing to work were:

  • Could still perform job
  • Not really “sick enough” to stay home
  • Not really contagious
  • Professional obligation to assist co-workers
  • Difficulty finding replacement

EXPO-STOP 2015 -a small decrease in US Sharps Injuries

Our EXPO-STOP 2015 results, published online in July AJIC, show a small reduction in sharps injuries since 2001

181 hospitals from 34 states contributed data to EXPO-STOP 2015, making it the largest of our 6 EXPO-STOP annual surveys .

Of the 9,343 exposure reported, 71% were sharps injuries (SI) and 29% were mucocutaneous exposures. Of total sharps injuries reported, 38% were during surgical procedures.

The SI rate was 25.2 per 100 occupied beds (OB) however we concluded that “Occupied Beds” is no longer a valid denominator  as it does not include the rising number of patients seen as day cases.

We believe “FTE” is the gold standard as it includes ALL staff no matter how patients are seen – and the 2015 rate was 2.1/100 FTE – significantly less than the 2.7/100 FTE EPINet found in 2001.

But the reduction is not enough. We estimate over 300, 000 US HCW sustain SI annually – that’s 800 every day of the year!

Click here for an ‘Author Copy’ of our paper (if you are an APIC member click here for the AJIC published article ).

And our publication “5 Proven Strategies to Reduce Sharps Injuries” has now been made freely available by AOHP- click here for copy.

 

AOHP offers “Sharps injury reduction strategies” free to all

The Association for Occupational Health Professionals (AOHP) have offered a valuable high-interest article free of charge .

JAOHP recently published its member-survey which ascertained their strategies to reduce sharps injuries and mucocutaneous blood exposures.

In the EXPO-STOP 2015 survey the “top” low incidence hospitals had SI incident rates 70% below the U.S. national average. The paper outlines their effective strategies.

Click here for the announcement and then click  within to get the free PDF article.

A 7min video on Sharps Injuries in USA

How many sharps injuries occurred to US Healthcare workers in 2015 and how do we prevent them?

At the Association for the Healthcare Environment annual conference in Pittsburg last year, I was asked if I would do a brief video on sharps injuries.

I jumped at the offer (of course)  and spoke on the EXPO-STOP survey that Dr Linda Good and I conduct annually for the Association of Occupational Health Professionals (AOHP).

The 2015 data showed that:

  • Approximately 1,000 HCW sustan a sharps injury DAILY
  • 40% of reported sharps injuries  were from nurses, 35% doctors; and 2-4% were environmental services staff
  • Of EVS staff, the two main causes were (I) handling sharps containers (ii) improper disposal of sharps (left on floor, bed, table, etc)
  • Four prevention strategies were:
    • Helping your institution become more sharps aware
    • Using safety engineered devices more frequently and more correctly
    • Training staff until they are competent in the use of that device/procedure
    • Investigating EVERY sharps injury
  • Thanks to AHE, if you would like to use the video in your training sessions click here.

Sharps Injuries among Australian Healthcare Workers

Sharps Injuries are far too frequent among Australian healthcare workers (HWC)

Accidental sharps injuries (SI) via needles, sutures, etc, all carry a small but real risk of transmitting bloodborne diseases like HepB, HIV, etc., to the injured HCW.

In fact, Tarantola et al state there are 60 infectious diseases that can be transmitted by these injuries.

At the Australasian College of Infection Prevention and Control (ACIPC) 2016 conference, myself, Nicole Vaust and Jane Parker presented the results of a national survey we conducted among ACIPC members (with ACIPC and Ethics approval)

We asked members 9 questions on their institution’s 2014 occurrence of SI and mucocutaneous exposures (blood splashes to face, etc) – 307 hospitals from 6 states participated, making the survey one of largest in Australia – and we were surprised at the results.

Three out of every hundred HCW reported a sharps injury in 2014 (higher than USA rate); 51% of reported SI were nurses and 37% doctors; and 47% of all SI occurred during surgical procedures.

Extrapolating to Australia nationally, this means over 30,000 HCW sustain an SI annually – 80 per day!

Could it be that Australian HCW are not using safety engineered devices often enough? Or correctly?

What is clear is that this issue needs greater attention at state, perhaps federal legislative level – as it has in most developed countries.

click here for our poster

We will shortly submit our manuscript to the ACIPC Journal of Infection, Disease and Health – so watch this space.

EXPO-STOP 2015 Blood-exposure Survey – Sneak Preview

AOHP EXPO-STOP blood-exposure survey is too large for one post – but here’s a sneak preview

The 2015 EXPO-STOP blood exposure survey of the Association of Occupational Health Professionals in Healthcare (AOHP) will take several publications to convey all the data to readers – so Linda Good and I wanted to share the presentation we delivered at the Sept 2016 AOHP Conference in Myrtle Beach SC, USA.

In this 5th annual EXPO-STOP survey, 182 hospitals from 38 states participated  – making it USA’s largest.

The PowerPoint covers: the 2015 EXPO-STOP national blood exposure incidence; proven strategies to reduce sharps injury (SI) incidence; and url’s of many resources

Take Home Messages

  • USA SI incidence is 2.1 per 100 FTE hospital staff – a significant decrease from 2.7 in 2001
  • Nurses at 3.2 SI/100 FTE represent 46% of all reported SI (Drs 32%)
  • Surgical SI = 38% of all SI reported
  • But… this incidence means 320,000 HCW sustain SI annually – almost 1,000/day.
  • Renewed focus on prevention strategies is needed
  • Best practices include more effective Safety Devices, Competency training, Communication to all, Investigation, Engagement – particularly in OR.

Click here for download of PPT presentation

Watch this Space! – the top proven SI prevention strategies will be published in JAOHP Winter Issue in March 2017

AOHP’s latest 2013 & 2014 Blood Exposure Study

The USA Association of Occupational Health Professionals in Healthcare (AOHP) has issued a press release on the publication of their 2013-14 survey of Blood exposure incidence among US healthcare workers (HCW).

The survey, AOHP’s third in their annual series, and in which 84 hospitals in 28 states participated in supplying their 2013 and 2014 data, shows a significant rise in exposure incidents among US HCW.

Using “per 100 occupied beds” as the denominator, the 2014 sharps injury (SI) rate of 33.3, is significantly higher than the 24.0 in AOHP’s 2011 survey, and significantly higher than the EPINet rate of 22.2 in 2001, the year safety engineered devices (SED) became mandatory.
Exposure incidents include the HCW being stuck with a blood-contaminated needle or having a patient’s blood or blood-contaminated fluids splashed onto them. Each such incident carries a small but definite risk of transmitting one or more of 60 diseases, the three most well-known being HIV, Hepatitis C and Hepatitis B.

The denominator showing the highest rise was “Occupied beds” and this may reflect  the inability of this denominator to reflect the increases in day-patients and outpatients. However, “Total FTE”, a mirror of total patient workload, also showed a rising trend.

The paper, authored by Carol Brown, Miranda Dally, myself and Linda Good, propose the rise may be due to:

  • increasing HCW workloads;
  • decreasing resources;
  • increasing day-patient and outpatient numbers, and
  • incorrect use of SED

Several hospitals stood out for their low exposure rates. Examples of their successful reduction-strategies were: Competency-based education at orientation and annually (and repeated with all injured HCW); Investigation of every sharps injury; Making SI rates transparent and known to all staff; Requiring a waiver to be requested for non-SED use; Holding HCW and Management responsible for their safety.

The published copyright paper may be purchased by emailing AOHP at [email protected]  A complimentary, pre-publication Author Copy , for personal use only, is available here.

AOHP’s fifth annual survey (2015 calendar year) is in progress with publication aim late 2016.