Blood Exposure Among Paramedics: Incidence Rates From the National Study to Prevent Blood Exposure in Paramedics

Circumstances Surrounding Occupational Blood Exposure Events in the National Study to Prevent Blood Exposure in Paramedics

“…First, we found that 80% of the needle/lancet sticks occurred with non-safety devices. Considered in the context of earlier findings from this study-that the incidence rate of needle/lancet sticks was much lower 1) and the use of safety devices was much higher 7) in California compared to the U.S. as a whole-this suggests that, as with hospital health care workers [9][10][11] , increased use of safety devices by paramedics would reduce paramedics' risk of blood exposure. Furthermore, we reported previously that provision of safety devices by the employer was a major determinant of safety device use by paramedics 7) .…”

“…More than 70% were 30 to 49 yr old, and more than 60% had greater than 5 yr of experience. Because the sample was designed to provide precise estimates of incidence rates 1) , the number of exposure events in the present analysis is relatively small and some of the estimated proportions have wide confidence intervals.…”

“…Because the sample size was based on providing precise estimates of incidence rates 1) , the number of exposure events in the present analysis is relatively small and some of the estimated proportions have wide confidence intervals. The purpose of this analysis was to identify cir-OCCUPATIONAL BLOOD EXPOSURE EVENTS IN U.S. PARAMEDICS cumstances that occurred more frequently and therefore might indicate directions for intervention to reduce blood exposure in paramedics.…”

“…In this report, we describe details of the needle/lancet-stick, mucous membrane, and non-intact skin exposures. These three routes accounted for 90% of the overall blood exposure incidence rate in this study 1) . (The present analysis was based on up to two exposures for each route whereas the incidence rates 1) were based on all exposures during the study period.…”

“…(The present analysis was based on up to two exposures for each route whereas the incidence rates 1) were based on all exposures during the study period. Because of this restriction and item nonresponse, the number of exposures/exposed paramedics in this report is less than the number in the previous incidence rate report 1) ).…”