- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 15,238
- Reaction score
- 7,188
Habeed - Most of your post seems driven by fear and emotion, and not logic. There are a lot of logical flaws in your thinking.
You seem to think that by sending the patient's blood out anonymously to get tested will help you avoid the hassle and pain of taking HIV prophylaxis.
However - Post exposure prophylaxis needs to be started ASAP. We're talking hours, NOT days.
And anonymous HIV testing by mail can take WEEKS to come back. Most labs don't do rapid HIV tests unless it's a documented occupational exposure....in which case they would require a signed patient consent form.
So what are you going to do in the meantime while waiting for your anonymous HIV tests results to come back? Probably take HIV prophylaxis, which is what you were trying to avoid in the first place!!
So, ethical issues aside, I don't think that sending off the patient's blood anonymously makes any practical sense, since it doesn't improve the situation at all.
Ummm...what?!
Without the patient's consent, how do you plan on drawing blood to get it tested? Sneak in and do it while they're asleep? (Most patients tend to hate it when they wake up and see someone coming at them unannounced.) Lie and say it's just for "phlebotomy practice?" (Which leads you to an even worse moral quandary!) How do you plan on getting this blood without being forthcoming with the patient?
WHAT?!
- "one set of hands in the surgical field at a time" is an impossibility. Some maneuvers just require 3 hands or more. You can't get around that. When you do your surgery rotation, you'll see.
- You should always double glove anyway. You should always wear a face shield or goggles anyway. Even those aren't impervious - they don't cover your full head, they can crack, leak, etc.
- If there were sharps resistant gloves, even if they were sterilizable under "electron beam," we'd use them if they were at all cost efficient. It's cheaper just to be careful than try to use an "electron beam" to sterilize gloves, though.
- Suture needles can't have "guards" on them - that pretty much defeats the purpose of a suture needle. I don't know what you're talking about here.
- WHY ON EARTH would I use a "full isolation suit" for a patient with TB??!! TB is not blood borne. I would wear an N95 mask, regardless of the type of TB the patient had.
Dude, I know you're scared. But some of your suggestions (i.e. a full isolation suit for TB patients) are giving away the fact that your thoughts are driven more by fear, and not logic.
Just because you've heard of surgeons being unethical people doesn't mean that YOU should follow suit.
I've heard of transplant surgeons who harvest organs without the donor being fully brain-dead. Does that mean that I can do it too??
What the heck are you talking about?? MRSA is completely different, seeing as it is not a bloodborne disease!
"Universal precautions" are meant to protect against blood borne diseases like HIV, Hep B, Hep C. You can get MRSA just going to your favorite gym and using a public locker room. It's a VERY different story.
No, whoever cooked up the rules realized that the healthcare provider is not the only person who matters here....and that patients have the right to decline consent to have their blood tested, should they choose to do so.
I understand your fear. Trust me, I've been there, having been stuck once myself (which was completely my fault, by the way.) But some of your reasoning as to why patient consent doesn't need to be obtained seems to be a little....selfish, one-sided, and egocentric.
Maybe, but your suggestion didn't make much sense either.
People are jumping on me for saying that I'd like to more effectively protect myself by having any blood I get stuck with tested for HIV. If the patient didn't consent, then the HIV test should be anonymous, sent out of state via overnight mail to a lab in a state that doesn't have mandatory reporting requirements.
And the results of such a test could easily save my life. (because if I get stuck twice a year, like the average surgical resident, after a while I'm probably going to stop bothering with prophylaxis drugs)
You seem to think that by sending the patient's blood out anonymously to get tested will help you avoid the hassle and pain of taking HIV prophylaxis.
However - Post exposure prophylaxis needs to be started ASAP. We're talking hours, NOT days.
And anonymous HIV testing by mail can take WEEKS to come back. Most labs don't do rapid HIV tests unless it's a documented occupational exposure....in which case they would require a signed patient consent form.
So what are you going to do in the meantime while waiting for your anonymous HIV tests results to come back? Probably take HIV prophylaxis, which is what you were trying to avoid in the first place!!
So, ethical issues aside, I don't think that sending off the patient's blood anonymously makes any practical sense, since it doesn't improve the situation at all.
If the patient didn't consent, then the HIV test should be anonymous, sent out of state via overnight mail to a lab in a state that doesn't have mandatory reporting requirements. I don't see any ethical issues : if the patient didn't consent to testing, I'm not testing the patient...I'm testing blood I just got stuck with that might have come from anywhere... It's a fiction, but from a moral perspective I don't see anything wrong with it. Whatever I find out, from the patients view it's like the test never happened, as they wanted.
Ummm...what?!
Without the patient's consent, how do you plan on drawing blood to get it tested? Sneak in and do it while they're asleep? (Most patients tend to hate it when they wake up and see someone coming at them unannounced.) Lie and say it's just for "phlebotomy practice?" (Which leads you to an even worse moral quandary!) How do you plan on getting this blood without being forthcoming with the patient?
And, testing a patient before surgery for AIDs probably means it would be easier to make sure you don't get stuck THIS time. As in : only one set of hands in the surgical field at at time, double glove or wear those sharps resistant gloves under sterile outer gloves (maybe they could tolerate sterilization via electron beam), ALWAYS use the more expensive needles that have guards on them, ect. ALWAYS use the full face shield rather than just splash goggles. Change your scrubs immediately after you get even a tiny drop of blood from the HIV+ patient on them. Don't make a n
urse or doctor who has recently had, say, mouth surgery do certain procedures. Ect, ect...'universal' precautions are not going to be the absolute final word in what can be done. I mean, for a patient that had the drug immune strain of TB, you'd want to wear a full isolation suit, right?
WHAT?!
- "one set of hands in the surgical field at a time" is an impossibility. Some maneuvers just require 3 hands or more. You can't get around that. When you do your surgery rotation, you'll see.
- You should always double glove anyway. You should always wear a face shield or goggles anyway. Even those aren't impervious - they don't cover your full head, they can crack, leak, etc.
- If there were sharps resistant gloves, even if they were sterilizable under "electron beam," we'd use them if they were at all cost efficient. It's cheaper just to be careful than try to use an "electron beam" to sterilize gloves, though.
- Suture needles can't have "guards" on them - that pretty much defeats the purpose of a suture needle. I don't know what you're talking about here.
- WHY ON EARTH would I use a "full isolation suit" for a patient with TB??!! TB is not blood borne. I would wear an N95 mask, regardless of the type of TB the patient had.
Dude, I know you're scared. But some of your suggestions (i.e. a full isolation suit for TB patients) are giving away the fact that your thoughts are driven more by fear, and not logic.
I've anechdotally heard second hand of surgeons who do, somewhat illegally, order HIV tests on every patient prior to surgery. The results of the test don't go in the patients file, and the surgeon does the procedure either way, but knowing which patients to treat like they are a biohazard is rather valuable information.
Just because you've heard of surgeons being unethical people doesn't mean that YOU should follow suit.
I've heard of transplant surgeons who harvest organs without the donor being fully brain-dead. Does that mean that I can do it too??
1. People who don't have to follow them believe in the fiction of perfect 'universal precautions' that aren't going to be a hermetic defense anytime, all of the time. Or, MRSA wouldn't be such a huge problem.
What the heck are you talking about?? MRSA is completely different, seeing as it is not a bloodborne disease!
"Universal precautions" are meant to protect against blood borne diseases like HIV, Hep B, Hep C. You can get MRSA just going to your favorite gym and using a public locker room. It's a VERY different story.
2. Whoever cooked the rules up thinks that needlesticks are always the fault of the healthcare provider.
No, whoever cooked up the rules realized that the healthcare provider is not the only person who matters here....and that patients have the right to decline consent to have their blood tested, should they choose to do so.
I understand your fear. Trust me, I've been there, having been stuck once myself (which was completely my fault, by the way.) But some of your reasoning as to why patient consent doesn't need to be obtained seems to be a little....selfish, one-sided, and egocentric.
3. Whoever cooked the rules up thinks that always doing prophylaxis when the patient won't consent is a practical idea.
Maybe, but your suggestion didn't make much sense either.