The toxicity of antineoplastic drugs is well documented. Many are known or suspected human carcinogens where no safe exposure level exists. Authoritative guidelines developed by professional practice organizations and federal agencies for the safe handling of these hazardous drugs have been available for nearly three decades. As a means of evaluating the extent of use of primary prevention practices such as engineering, administrative and work practice controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), and barriers to using PPE, the National Institute for Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a web survey of health care workers in 2011. The study population primarily included members of professional practice organizations representing health care occupations which routinely use or come in contact with selected chemical agents. All respondents who indicated that they administered antineoplastic drugs in the past week were eligible to complete a hazard module addressing self-reported health and safety practices on this topic. Most (98%) of the 2069 respondents of this module were nurses. Working primarily in hospitals, outpatient care centers, and physician offices, respondents reported that they had collectively administered over 90 specific antineoplastic drugs in the past week, with carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel the most common. Examples of activities which increase exposure risk, expressed as percent of respondents, included: failure to wear nonabsorbent gown with closed front and tight cuffs (42%); intravenous (I.V.) tubing primed with antineoplastic drug by respondent (6%) or by pharmacy (12%); potentially contaminated clothing taken home (12%); spill or leak of antineoplastic drug during administration (12%); failure to wear chemotherapy gloves (12%); and lack of hazard awareness training (4%). The most common reason for not wearing gloves or gowns was “skin exposure was minimal”; 4% of respondents, however, reported skin contact during handling and administration. Despite the longstanding availability of safe handling guidance, recommended practices are not always followed, underscoring the importance of training and education for employers and workers.

Background Consensus organizations, government bodies, and healthcare organization guidelines recommend that surgical smoke be evacuated at the source by local exhaust ventilation (LEV) (i.e., smoke evacuators or wall suctions with inline filters). Methods Data are from NIOSH’s Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers module on precautionary practices for surgical smoke. Results Four thousand five hundred thirty-three survey respondents reported exposure to surgical smoke: 4,500 during electrosurgery; 1,392 during laser surgery procedures. Respondents were mainly nurses (56%) and anesthesiologists (21%). Only 14% of those exposed during electrosurgery reported LEV was always used during these procedures, while 47% reported use during laser surgery. Those reporting LEV was always used were also more likely to report training and employer standard procedures addressing the hazards of surgical smoke. Few respondents reported use of respiratory protection. Conclusions Study findings can be used to raise awareness of the marginal use of exposure controls and impediments for their use.

Background The Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers describes current practices used to minimize chemical exposures and barriers to using recommended personal protective equipment for the following: antineoplastic drugs, anesthetic gases, high level disinfectants, surgical smoke, aerosolized medications (pentamidine, ribavirin, and antibiotics), and chemical sterilants. Methods Twenty-one healthcare professional practice organizations collaborated with NIOSH to develop and implement the web-based survey. Results Twelve thousand twenty-eight respondents included professional, technical, and support occupations which routinely come in contact with the targeted hazardous chemicals. Chemical-specific safe handling training was lowest for aerosolized antibiotics (52%, n = 316), and surgical smoke (57%, n = 4,747). Reported employer procedures for minimizing exposure was lowest for surgical smoke (32%, n = 4,746) and anesthetic gases (56%, n = 3,604). Conclusions Training and having procedures in place to minimize exposure to these chemicals is one indication of employer and worker safety awareness. Safe handling practices for use of these chemicals will be reported in subsequent papers.

Antineoplastic drugs pose risks to the healthcare workers who handle them. This fact notwithstanding, adherence to safe handling guidelines remains inconsistent and often poor. This study examined the effects of pertinent organizational safety practices and perceived safety climate on the use of personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and adverse events (spill/leak or skin contact) involving liquid antineoplastic drugs. Data for this study came from the 2011 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers which included a sample of approximately 1,800 nurses who had administered liquid antineoplastic drugs during the past seven days. Regression modeling was used to examine predictors of personal protective equipment use, engineering controls, and adverse events involving antineoplastic drugs. Approximately 14% of nurses reported experiencing an adverse event while administering antineoplastic drugs during the previous week. Usage of recommended engineering controls and personal protective equipment was quite variable. Usage of both was better in non-profit and government settings, when workers were more familiar with safe handling guidelines, and when perceived management commitment to safety was higher. Usage was poorer in the absence of specific safety handling procedures. The odds of adverse events increased with number of antineoplastic drugs treatments and when antineoplastic drugs were administered more days of the week. The odds of such events were significantly lower when the use of engineering controls and personal protective equipment was greater and when more precautionary measures were in place. Greater levels of management commitment to safety and perceived risk were also related to lower odds of adverse events. These results point to the value of implementing a comprehensive health and safety program that utilizes available hazard controls and effectively communicates and demonstrates the importance of safe handling practices. Such actions also contribute to creating a positive safety climate.

Precautionary guidelines detailing standards of practice and equipment to eliminate or minimize exposure to antineoplastic drugs during handling activities have been available for nearly three decades. To evaluate practices for compounding antineoplastic drugs, the NIOSH Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers was conducted among members of professional practice organizations representing primarily oncology nurses, pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians. This national survey is the first in over 20 years to examine self-reported use of engineering, administrative, and work practice controls and PPE by pharmacy practitioners for minimizing exposure to antineoplastic drugs. The survey was completed by 241 nurses and 183 pharmacy practitioners who compounded antineoplastic drugs in the seven days prior to the survey. They reported: not always wearing two pairs of chemotherapy gloves (85%, 47%, respectively) or even a single pair (8%, 10%); not always using closed system drug-transfer devices (75%, 53%); not always wearing recommended gown (38%, 20%); I.V. lines sometimes/always primed with antineoplastic drug (19%, 30%); and not always using either a biological safety cabinet or isolator (9%, 15%). They also reported lack of: hazard awareness training (9%, 13%); safe handling procedures (20%, 11%); and medical surveillance programs (61%, 45%). Both employers and healthcare workers share responsibility for adhering to precautionary guidelines and other best practices. Employers can ensure that: workers are trained regularly; facility safe-handling procedures reflecting national guidelines are in place and support for their implementation is understood; engineering controls and PPE are available and workers know how to use them; and medical surveillance, exposure monitoring, and other administrative controls are in place. Workers can seek out training, understand and follow facility procedures, be role models for junior staff, ask questions, and report any safety concerns.

Objectives: Patient care aides, who provide basic care to patients in a variety of healthcare settings, have been observed to have higher prevalences of adverse health metrics than the general US workforce. However, few studies have examined how healthcare access and health behaviors and outcomes among patient care aides differ by work setting (home health, nursing home, and hospital).Methods: Data from the 2013 to 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were used to assess the prevalences of healthcare access, health-related behaviors, and health outcomes among patient care aides in different work settings, and among nurses (licensed vocational/practical and registered). Adjusted prevalence ratios were used to compare prevalences for healthcare workers to those for nonhealthcare clerical workers.Results: Overall, patient care aides are a low-wage workforce with high prevalences of multiple adverse health metrics and low prevalences of positive health behaviors compared to clerical workers. Results differed by work setting. Home health aides had the lowest income levels and most adverse results for multiple metrics; nursing home aides had better healthcare access and somewhat better health outcomes.Most metrics were best (though still quite poor) for hospital aides, who showed few significant differences from clerical workers. Conclusions:These results show the need to focus resources on the patient care aide workforce, particularly those in home health. While some needs of nursing home aides, such as improving influenza vaccination coverage and reducing the prevalence of arthritis-related conditions, would benefit from standardized workplace interventions, alternate, workplace-specific approaches are needed for home health aides.

A field study was conducted with the goal of comparing the performance of three recently developed or modified sampling and analytical methods for the determination of airborne hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). The study was carried out in a hard chrome electroplating facility and in a jet engine manufacturing facility where airborne Cr(VI) was expected to be present. The analytical methods evaluated included two laboratory-based procedures (OSHA Method ID-215 and NIOSH Method 7605) and a field-portable method (NIOSH Method 7703). These three methods employ an identical sampling methodology: collection of Cr(VI)-containing aerosol on a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) filter housed in a sampling cassette, which is connected to a personal sampling pump calibrated at an appropriate flow rate. The basis of the analytical methods for all three methods involves extraction of the PVC filter in alkaline buffer solution, chemical isolation of the Cr(VI) ion, complexation of the Cr(VI) ion with 1,5-diphenylcarbazide, and spectrometric measurement of the violet chromium diphenylcarbazone complex at 540 nm. However, there are notable specific differences within the sample preparation procedures used in three methods. To assess the comparability of the three measurement protocols, a total of 20 side-by-side air samples were collected, equally divided between a chromic acid electroplating operation and a spray paint operation where water soluble forms of Cr(VI) were used. A range of Cr(VI) concentrations from 0.6 to 960 microg m(-3), with Cr(VI) mass loadings ranging from 0.4 to 32 microg, was measured at the two operations. The equivalence of the means of the log-transformed Cr(VI) concentrations obtained from the different analytical methods was compared. Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) results, no statistically significant differences were observed between mean values measured using each of the three methods. Small but statistically significant differences were observed between results obtained from performance evaluation samples for the NIOSH field method and the OSHA laboratory method.

Scavenging systems and administrative and work practice controls for minimizing occupational exposure to waste anesthetic gases have been available and recommended for many years. Anesthetic gases and vapors that are released or leak out during medical procedures are considered waste anesthetic gases. To better understand the extent recommended practices are used, the NIOSH Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers was conducted in 2011 among members of professional practice organizations representing anesthesia care providers (ACPs) including physician anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants. This national survey is the first to examine self-reported use of controls to minimize exposure to waste anesthetic gases among ACPs. The survey was completed by 1,783 nurse anesthetists, 1,104 physician anesthesiologists and 100 anesthesiologist assistants who administered inhaled anesthetics in the seven days prior to the survey. Working in hospitals and outpatient surgical centers, respondents reported that they most often administered sevoflurane and, to a lesser extent desflurane and isoflurane, in combination with nitrous oxide. Use of scavenging systems was nearly universal, reported by 97% of respondents. However, adherence to recommended administrative and work practice controls were lacking to varying degrees and differed among those administering anesthetics to pediatric (P) or adult (A) patients. Examples of practices which increase exposure risk, expressed as percent of respondents, included: using high (fresh gas) flow anesthesia only (17% P, 6% A), starting anesthetic gas flow before delivery mask or airway mask was applied to patient (35% P; 14% A); not routinely checking anesthesia equipment and components for leaks (4% P, 5% A), and using a funnel-fill system to fill vaporizers (16%). Respondents also reported that facilities lacked safe handling procedures (19%) and hazard awareness training (18%). Adherence to precautionary work practices was generally highest among nurse anesthetists compared to the other ACPs. Successful management of waste anesthetic gases should include scavenging systems, hazard awareness training, availability of standard procedures to minimize exposure, regular inspection of anesthesia delivery equipment for leaks, prompt attention to spills and leaks, and medical surveillance.