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.