Segregation Practices by Health Workers in Urban Hospitals - A Step Necessary to Achieve Minimization and Effective Biomedical Waste Management

Abstract

Effective segregation practice of biomedical waste is a critical process in hospital waste management and maintenance of a ‘risk-free’ health care environment. Failure to appropriately identify and isolate infectious from non-infectious wastes could lead to a myriad of health and biomedical waste management issues, which include high risk of cross-contamination, high risk of infection, difficulty in the assessment of waste generation, categorization, and composition of hospital waste. The aim of this study is to assess the segregation practice among health workers in selected hospitals in Abuja towards achieving effective waste management. A descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted among 430 participants from six hospitals in Abuja. Data were collected using a pretested, structured questionnaire and on-the-spot observation. Reliability analysis and descriptive statistics were employed for the analysis of data. Most of the respondents agreed to the segregation at the point of generation 366 (91.5%), majority of the respondents supported the use of color-coded bins for segregation. The Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.830, loading factor (0.601- 0.949) which indicates that the measuring tool was reliable and the items on the questionnaire showed co-relatedness and consistency. The study revealed that most of the respondents were sensitized and practiced the process of segregation. Although these practices were observed on the spot, they could later change thus, sustenance of these practices is expedient to maintain a lasting and workable waste management framework. Government and hospital waste management team to prioritize the segregation process through an adequate budget for supplies of segregation materials.

Assessment of Hospital Infection Prevention and Control Practices: Insights from Kampala International University Teaching Hospital, Ishaka, Uganda

“…In spite of the fact that many staff consider waste segregation to be everybody's duty, some think that waste segregation is a role for casual workers. According to empirical literature, it is possible that segregation can be achieved through training and the design of clear standards to be followed by all players in waste generation in hospitals [23] Segregation consists of separating the different waste streams based on the hazardous properties of the waste, the type of treatment, and the disposal methods that are applied to each [24] Efforts should be made to minimise the amount of waste generated by the health facility, e.g., paper and unnecessary injections. The administration should provide means of waste disposal that are accessible and convenient for staff.…”

“…The respondents responded as shown in the table below. (24) of the respondents strongly agreed that the running water sources in their wards were easily accessible from the working areas, 52% (52) agreed, 12% (12) neither agreed nor disagreed, 6% (6) disagreed and6% (6) strongly disagreed. This implies that in majority of the wards medical personnel can access the running water easily from the working area hence facilitating the practice of hand washing by the staff while working.…”

“…This implies that the majority of medical personnel at KIUTH felt that they had sufficient knowledge of infection control and prevention practices and were thus likely to identify the root factors influencing infection prevention and control practices at KIUTH. 2) of the respondents felt that precautionary measures always interfered with their work, 32% (32) felt that precautionary measures often interfered with their work, 42% (42) felt that precautionary measures rarely interfered with their work, and 24% (24) felt that precautionary measures never interfered with their work. This implies that the majority of medical personnel at KIUTH felt that precautionary measures rarely interfered with their work, and a minority of the respondents felt that precautionary measures always interfered with their work.…”

“…Respondents were asked about the chance of acquiring HIV after a needle stick injury and the findings are represented in table 8 18) of the respondents think there is a 10% chance of acquiring HIV after a needle stick injury, 22% (22) think there is a 30% chance of acquiring HIV, 32% (32) think there is a 0.3% chance of acquiring HIV, 24% (24) think there is a 70% chance of acquiring HIV, and 4% (4) had no response. This implies that some of the medical personnel at KIUTH think that there is a 0.3% chance of acquiring HIV from needle stick injuries; however, there is no clear-cut majority as a close to the same percentage of personnel think there is a 30% or 70% chance of acquiring HIV.…”