This site is part of the Global Exhibitions Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 3099067.


Sharps Safety and OSHA Compliance: Staying on the Right Side of the Law


By Kelly M. Pyrek

Despite legislation, regulation and stepped-up oversight and education campaigns by public and private sectors, needlesticks and other sharps-related injuries persist, although with variance in the rates depending on the healthcare setting. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)'s Bloodborne Pathogens Standard  outlines what employers must do to protect workers who are occupationally exposed to blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM), and on Nov. 6, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law the bloodborne pathogens standard (BBP) by way of the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. This federal law requires the use of standard  precautions to any setting where occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials occurs.  It mandated that the 1991 Bloodborne Pathogens Standard be revised to strengthen the requirements related to the use of safety-engineered sharps devices.

Compliance with OSHA's BBP standard (found in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 29 CFR 1910.1030) is mandatory, yet experts are concerned that in many hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, these mandates are not being heeded. To review, the standard requires employers to:

• Establish an exposure control plan. This is a written plan to eliminate or minimize occupational exposures. The employer must prepare an exposure determination that contains a list of job classifications in which all workers have occupational exposure and a list of job classifications in which some workers have occupational exposure, along with a list of the tasks and procedures performed by those workers that result in their exposure.

• Employers must update the plan annually to reflect changes in tasks, procedures and positions that affect occupational exposure, and also technological changes that eliminate or reduce occupational exposure. In addition, employers must annually document in the plan that they have considered and begun using appropriate, commercially-available effective safer medical devices designed to eliminate or minimize occupational exposure. Employers must also document that they have solicited input from frontline workers in identifying, evaluating and selecting effective engineering and work-practice controls.

• Implement the use of standard precautions (treating all human blood and OPIM as if known to be infectious for bloodborne pathogens).

• Identify and use engineering controls. These are devices that isolate or remove the bloodborne pathogens hazard from the workplace. They include sharps disposal containers, self-sheathing needles and safer medical devices, such as sharps with engineered sharps-injury protection and needleless systems.

• Identify and ensure the use of work-practice controls. These are practices that reduce the possibility of exposure by changing the way a task is performed, such as appropriate practices for handling and disposing of contaminated sharps, handling specimens, handling laundry, and cleaning contaminated surfaces and items.

• Provide personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gloves, gowns, eye protection and masks. Employers must clean, repair and replace this equipment as needed. Provision, maintenance, repair and replacement are at no cost to the worker.

• Make available hepatitis B vaccinations to all workers with occupational exposure. This vaccination must be offered after the worker has received the required bloodborne pathogens training and within 10 days of initial assignment to a job with occupational exposure.

• Make available post-exposure evaluation and follow-up to any occupationally exposed worker who experiences an exposure incident. An exposure incident is a specific eye, mouth, other mucous membrane, non-intact skin, or parenteral contact with blood or OPIM. This evaluation and follow-up must be at no cost to the worker and includes documenting the route(s) of exposure and the circumstances under which the exposure incident occurred; identifying and testing the source individual for HBV and HIV infectivity, if the source individual consents or the law does not require consent; collecting and testing the exposed worker’s blood, if the worker consents; offering post-exposure prophylaxis; offering counseling; and evaluating reported illnesses. The healthcare professional will provide a limited written opinion to the employer and all diagnoses must remain confidential.

• Use labels and signs to communicate hazards. Warning labels must be affixed to containers of regulated waste; containers of contaminated reusable sharps; refrigerators and freezers containing blood or OPIM; other containers used to store, transport, or ship blood or OPIM; contaminated equipment that is being shipped or serviced; and bags or containers of contaminated laundry, except as provided in the standard. Facilities may use red bags or red containers instead of labels. In HIV and HBV research laboratories and production facilities, signs must be posted at all access doors when OPIM or infected animals are present in the work area or containment module.

• Provide information and training to workers. Employers must ensure that their workers receive regular training that covers all elements of the standard including, but not limited to: information on bloodborne pathogens and diseases, methods used to control occupational exposure, hepatitis B vaccine, and medical evaluation and post-exposure follow-up procedures. Employers must offer this training on initial assignment, at least annually thereafter, and when new or modified tasks or procedures affect a worker’s occupational exposure. Also, HIV and HBV laboratory and production facility workers must receive specialized initial training, in addition to the training provided to all workers with occupational exposure. Workers must have the opportunity to ask the trainer questions. Also, training must be presented at an educational level and in a language that workers understand.

• Maintain worker medical and training records. The employer also must maintain a sharps injury log, unless it is exempt under Part 1904 -- Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Of note in these standards is the requirement (made mandatory in 2001 in a revision of the BBP standard) that employers maintain a sharps injury log and that frontline workers be included in the safety-engineered device selection process. The revised BBP standard includes:
- An expanded definition of engineering control to include devices with engineered sharps injury protection and needleless systems
- Exposure control plans that reflect changes in technology which reduce exposure to bloodborne pathogens and that document the consideration, at least annually, of devices to minimize occupational exposure
- Documentation at least annual input from frontline workers for identification, evaluation and selection of devices and other controls
- A sharps injury log of percutaneous injuries with information on the type and brand of device involved the department where the incident occurred, and an explanation of how the injury occurred. The confidential sharps injury log must include the following information: type and brand of the device causing the injury (if known); department or work areas where incident occurred; description of the events surrounding the injury including the body part affected and objects/substances involved in the exposure. The sharps injury log should be reviewed regularly and as part of the review and update of the facility's exposure control plan.

It should be kept in mind that some states have additional requirements beyond the federal law, such as the requirement for healthcare facilities to report needlestick injury data to a state agency. State laws with stricter requirements take precedence over the federal requirements; however, if a state's sharps safety law is less stringent than the federal law, the federal law’s requirements must be followed.

There are still too many facilities running afoul of federal mandates, says Pamela Dembski Hart, CHSP, BS, MT(ASCP), principal of Massachusetts-based Healthcare Accreditation Resources LLC, who specializes in healthcare accreditation, safety and compliance issues, and helps institutions  identify noncompliance and areas for improvement with the BBP standard.
Dembski Hart identifies a number of common challenges with which facilities struggle:  "I see a lack of education regarding the requirements and lack of information, so they still don't know much about OSHA requirements.  If they do know about them, they may feel as though it's not something they really have to address. Also, even  if they know about them, many of the healthcare center administrators will rely on physician input  or nursing staff preferences regarding the selection of safety-engineered devices, and that may not always be the best approach. And if they do have safety devices, many facilities have never investigated them thoroughly since the purchasing decision was made by a larger organization or system which has chosen what they will purchase without adequate involvement of frontline staff -- and this goes against OSHA requirements. Many facilities do not look at the next generation of safety devices that are available, even though OSHA requires it annually."

Dembski Hart emphasizes that implementation of OSHA mandates is suboptimal, especially in outpatient facilities that have fewer staff and resources and less administrative oversight. "Many of the nurse managers in outpatient-care facilities are not trained as infection preventionists as part of their basic education and training. I think that people are misguided when they think they can just plop someone into that role. Too much pressure is being placed on these individuals; they are expected to implement OSHA requirements but they really don't understand them. Sharps safety is a separate entity to them and it is not on their infection prevention and control radar screen. There's a lot to the OSHA regulations, and it evolves. On top of having to be a clinical caregiver as well as a regulatory oversight person,  it's no wonder they feel overwhelmed. It's a lot to manage and they are not given the time to do so properly in many cases. Implementation of OSHA regulations requires proper education and time -- two things that are not always in abundance."

The solution, Dembski Hart says, lies in support from organization administrators. "I believe they need commitment from the facility's management, and support from leadership that emphasizes the importance of safety and the ramifications if clinicians do not practice safely," she says. "The challenge, especially in outpatient facilities, is that decisions are driven by the bottom line and facility administrators can be dismissive of the risks because they are so focused on issues relating to revenue and patient turnaround. In some ambulatory surgery centers, accreditation is the gold standard but often the reason they are pursuing it is to have a competitive advantage. But they need to realize that oversight that requires excellence will also improve the bottom line."

The focus must shift to costs associated with a sharps injury and the toll taken on human health, Dembski Hart adds. "The cost to purchase safety-engineered devices, as mandated by the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, pales in compared with the cost to manage a workplace injury," she says. "Never mind the trauma inflicted on the injured individual who was actually exposed to an infectious disease; even someone who did not actually seroconvert, there are costs associated with testing at day one, six weeks, three months and six months. That's four tests for hepatitis B, C and HIV -- it's quite an ordeal."
Although more than half of the surgeries in the U.S. are performed in ambulatory care centers, ambulatory surgery center (ASC) resources and safety oversight may lag significantly behind those of their hospital counterparts. In the past four years, OSHA has increased medical facility inspections. As a result, agents are citing more ASCs and physician offices for bloodborne pathogen standard violations. In fact, such violations make up the majority of OSHA medical facility citations in recent years.

According to a two-part series of articles published in October and November 2011 editions of the AORN Journal, the most frequent causes of bloodborne pathogen violations were outdated or nonexistent exposure control plans, poor documentation, the failure to use safety devices and the lack of free training during working hours. The violations that merited the largest fines dealt with failure to immediately remove personal protective equipment (PPE) penetrated with body fluids; failure to use safety devices; and the failure to provide workers with a free hepatitis B vaccination and follow-up.

“Compliance with the bloodborne pathogen standard may seem complex; however, it is the key to providing a safe workplace for both the healthcare employee and patient,” writes Dembski Hart, the author of the two-article series,  “Complying With the Bloodborne Pathogen Standard: Protecting Health Care Workers and Patients,” and “Compliance: the Key to Bloodborne Pathogen Safety.”

OSHA adopted the mandatory bloodborne pathogen standard in order to protect healthcare workers from exposure to blood, body fluids and infectious material. These infectious liquids and materials may contain bloodborne pathogens, particularly hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and HIV. While protecting workers from disease, safe practices also guard against patient exposures. In fact, in the last decade, more than 130,000 U.S. patients served at ASCs were notified of potential exposure to HBV, HCV and HIV due to unsafe injection practices and lapses in infection control. Hart describes how healthcare facilities can avoid frequent and costly OSHA violations. Facilities should develop and exposure control plans that determine safety risks and describe work practice controls. Facility managers should also solicit input from all employees to prevent needlesticks and sharp contamination and identify employees’ exposure risks.

Dembski Hart reports that last year, OSHA inspections and citations increased almost 10-fold in all types of healthcare facilities, including hospitals, and inspectors issued 3,674 citations, 62 percent of which were characterized as serious. In fiscal year 2010, of the $81,822 in fines issued to medical practices, 76 percent involved bloodborne pathogen-related violations. Dembski Hart also addresses under-reporting: "Although documentation of healthcare-associated infections and OSHA violations exists, healthcare worker injury reporting is not routinely documented. It is estimated that more than 800,000 injuries occur annually in the United States from needles and other sharps, and more than half of these injuries are never officially reported. Healthcare workers appear to be hesitant to report workplace injuries or exposures for a number of reasons, which may include the unavailability of written information and training regarding necessary steps of post-exposure evaluation and treatment protocols, incorrect perceptions regarding the seriousness of the incident or exposure, lack of time to fill out forms or participate in the reporting process, and fear of reprimand or embarrassment."

The day of reckoning has arrived, Dembski Hart acknowledges: "OSHA now has regional emphasis on unannounced surveys in outpatient facilities, recognizing that care has shifted significantly from acute-care hospital settings to outpatient settings and that more than 50 percent of healthcare workers are now employed in an outpatient care facility," Hart says. OSHA is also recognizing that there are additional hazards in healthcare that we didn't have 10 years ago -- everything is becoming more complex, including the devices, the patient population, procedures, and anesthetic gases -- all have changed dramatically."

« Previous12Next »
comments powered by Disqus