Lurie P, Jagger J
San Francisco Interns and Residents Association.
Healthc Hazard Mater Manage. 1992 Mar;5(6):1-5.
Most healthcare professionals have already read about the union grievance over the Critikon ProtectIV catheter filed at San Francisco General Hospital. The union's position was that the catheter which is designed to prevent needlesticks during insertion and removal, should be used in all applications at the hospital, rather than only in those that seemed to present greater risk of injury or infection. HHMM believes that engineering controls--specifically safety needles--should be fundamental to a good exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. If the primary pathway of exposure is the needlestick and the point of the control plan is to reduce needlesticks, then it is hard to refute the logic that safety devices are the best approach. The following material consists of the statement made by Dr. Peter Lurie to the grievance committee at San Francisco++ General and a letter from Dr. Janine Jagger presenting initial data on the effectiveness of the ProtectIV catheter in reducing injuries. Both are reprinted with permission. HHMM offers these documents for the information they contain, as well as for the guidance they offer in how to begin evaluating safety needle devices.
大多数医疗保健专业人员已经读过关于在旧金山总医院提交的针对Critikon ProtectIV导管的工会申诉。工会的立场是，这种旨在在插入和拔出过程中防止针刺伤的导管，应该在医院的所有应用中使用，而不仅仅是在那些似乎存在更大受伤或感染风险的应用中使用。HHMM认为，工程控制措施——特别是安全针——应该是良好的血源性病原体暴露控制计划的基础。如果主要的暴露途径是针刺伤，而控制计划的重点是减少针刺伤，那么很难反驳安全装置是最佳方法这一逻辑。以下材料包括彼得·卢里博士向旧金山总医院申诉委员会所作的陈述，以及贾宁·贾格尔博士的一封信，信中介绍了ProtectIV导管在减少伤害方面有效性的初步数据。两者均经许可转载。HHMM提供这些文件，既是为了它们所包含的信息，也是为了它们在如何开始评估安全针装置方面提供的指导。
