Limits...
Occupational safety among dental health-care workers.

Shimoji S, Ishihama K, Yamada H, Okayama M, Yasuda K, Shibutani T, Ogasawara T, Miyazawa H, Furusawa K - Adv Med Educ Pract (2010)

Bottom Line: Of the 66 workers who experienced sharps injuries, 20 workers (30.3%, 20/66) reported them to the hospital work safety team.The reason of low compliance of protective eyewear among dentists might relate to fine dental procedures.Appropriate information is important for the motive of wearing personal protective equipment, and an early educational program may have a potential to increase compliance with the use of that equipment.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Matsumoto Dental University, Shiojiri, Japan.

ABSTRACT
Compared to other health-care workers, dental health-care workers come in close contact with patients and use a variety of sharp and high-speed rotating instruments. It is important to understand the characteristics of the occupational accidents that occur. We reviewed incident reports from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2010, at Matsumoto Dental University Hospital. In addition, questionnaires dealing with identification of occupational safety issues, especially splash exposures, were conducted for dentists, dental hygienists, and nurses. Thirty-two occupational injuries were reported during the study period, including 23 sharp instrument injuries (71.9%), 6 splash exposures (18.8%), and 3 others. Of the six splash exposures, only two cases involved potential contamination with blood or other potentially infectious patient material. Of the 66 workers who experienced sharps injuries, 20 workers (30.3%, 20/66) reported them to the hospital work safety team. The questionnaire revealed high incident of splash exposures and conjunctiva exposures: 87.9% (51/58) and 60.3% (35/58) in dentists and 88.6% (39/44) and 61.4% (27/44) in dental hygienists. The compliance rate for routine use of protective eyewear was 60.3% (35/58) for dentists and 34.1% (15/44) for hygienists. Of the presented informational items included in the questionnaire, those that strongly persuaded respondents to use protective eyewear were 'splatters from the patient's mouth contain blood' (90%, 99/110) and 'dental operations at our clinic are performed based only on a questionnaire without serious examinations for HBV, HCV, and HIV' (71.8%, 79/110). The reason of low compliance of protective eyewear among dentists might relate to fine dental procedures. Appropriate information is important for the motive of wearing personal protective equipment, and an early educational program may have a potential to increase compliance with the use of that equipment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Examples of injured cases. A) Sharp instrument (a file) injury after treatment. The tip of a file is protruding from the instrument stand (red circle). B) Unexpected injury could occur during and after treatment. Left bur or scalar tip with hand pieces has a potential risk for injury.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3643130&req=5

f2-amep-1-041: Examples of injured cases. A) Sharp instrument (a file) injury after treatment. The tip of a file is protruding from the instrument stand (red circle). B) Unexpected injury could occur during and after treatment. Left bur or scalar tip with hand pieces has a potential risk for injury.

Mentions: The instruments that caused sharps injuries differed by job title for dentists, hygienists, and nurses. Syringe needles were common instruments among dentists and nurses, while files and burs were common among dental hygienists (Figure 2). Dental hygienists in our hospital are usually involved in oral care for periodontitis patients as assistants to a dentist and in cleaning instruments (Figure 2A) and the dental chair unit (Figure 2B). Unlike dentists and nurses, they were injured during cleaning after treatment, not during treatment. The same result was reported from the UK; that is, more injuries occurred after the treatment session.17 On the other hand, among dental students in training, significantly more incidents occurred while a patient was being treated than during cleanup procedures.18 Hurrying because of multiple procedures and time pressure, as well as a feeling of being ‘rushed’ may result in further medical errors or occupational risks.


Occupational safety among dental health-care workers.

Shimoji S, Ishihama K, Yamada H, Okayama M, Yasuda K, Shibutani T, Ogasawara T, Miyazawa H, Furusawa K - Adv Med Educ Pract (2010)

Examples of injured cases. A) Sharp instrument (a file) injury after treatment. The tip of a file is protruding from the instrument stand (red circle). B) Unexpected injury could occur during and after treatment. Left bur or scalar tip with hand pieces has a potential risk for injury.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3643130&req=5

f2-amep-1-041: Examples of injured cases. A) Sharp instrument (a file) injury after treatment. The tip of a file is protruding from the instrument stand (red circle). B) Unexpected injury could occur during and after treatment. Left bur or scalar tip with hand pieces has a potential risk for injury.
Mentions: The instruments that caused sharps injuries differed by job title for dentists, hygienists, and nurses. Syringe needles were common instruments among dentists and nurses, while files and burs were common among dental hygienists (Figure 2). Dental hygienists in our hospital are usually involved in oral care for periodontitis patients as assistants to a dentist and in cleaning instruments (Figure 2A) and the dental chair unit (Figure 2B). Unlike dentists and nurses, they were injured during cleaning after treatment, not during treatment. The same result was reported from the UK; that is, more injuries occurred after the treatment session.17 On the other hand, among dental students in training, significantly more incidents occurred while a patient was being treated than during cleanup procedures.18 Hurrying because of multiple procedures and time pressure, as well as a feeling of being ‘rushed’ may result in further medical errors or occupational risks.

Bottom Line: Of the 66 workers who experienced sharps injuries, 20 workers (30.3%, 20/66) reported them to the hospital work safety team.The reason of low compliance of protective eyewear among dentists might relate to fine dental procedures.Appropriate information is important for the motive of wearing personal protective equipment, and an early educational program may have a potential to increase compliance with the use of that equipment.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Matsumoto Dental University, Shiojiri, Japan.

ABSTRACT
Compared to other health-care workers, dental health-care workers come in close contact with patients and use a variety of sharp and high-speed rotating instruments. It is important to understand the characteristics of the occupational accidents that occur. We reviewed incident reports from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2010, at Matsumoto Dental University Hospital. In addition, questionnaires dealing with identification of occupational safety issues, especially splash exposures, were conducted for dentists, dental hygienists, and nurses. Thirty-two occupational injuries were reported during the study period, including 23 sharp instrument injuries (71.9%), 6 splash exposures (18.8%), and 3 others. Of the six splash exposures, only two cases involved potential contamination with blood or other potentially infectious patient material. Of the 66 workers who experienced sharps injuries, 20 workers (30.3%, 20/66) reported them to the hospital work safety team. The questionnaire revealed high incident of splash exposures and conjunctiva exposures: 87.9% (51/58) and 60.3% (35/58) in dentists and 88.6% (39/44) and 61.4% (27/44) in dental hygienists. The compliance rate for routine use of protective eyewear was 60.3% (35/58) for dentists and 34.1% (15/44) for hygienists. Of the presented informational items included in the questionnaire, those that strongly persuaded respondents to use protective eyewear were 'splatters from the patient's mouth contain blood' (90%, 99/110) and 'dental operations at our clinic are performed based only on a questionnaire without serious examinations for HBV, HCV, and HIV' (71.8%, 79/110). The reason of low compliance of protective eyewear among dentists might relate to fine dental procedures. Appropriate information is important for the motive of wearing personal protective equipment, and an early educational program may have a potential to increase compliance with the use of that equipment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus