Has anyone factored in blood borne exposures into desire to practice med?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

brotherbloat

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
171
Reaction score
1
Points
4,531
My husband sustained a needlestick injury yesterday--he is a second year anesthesia resident. We are both very worried. His was with a suture needle, that he doesn't think had any/ much blood on it, while securing a central line. It pierced through his glove though and cut his finger. He took comivir right away, and will continue to take this dosage until the pt's HIV results come back, but he is more worried about hep C, because the pt. had a hisotry of drug use, though at the time there was nothing in the chart to suggest Hepatitis of any form or HIV.

We are very worried. We know that when the pts' blood test comes back Monday for hepatitis and HIV that we won't be able to fully be assured until his own HIV tests and hep blood tests come back at the particular time intervals, etc.

We are freaking out! This is his first needlestick so far in his entire medical career.

Thanks,

BB
 
I feel for you. I've come close to getting stuck myself (i.e. could feel the tip of the needle through the glove, but got lucky). It must be really nerve wracking for both of you. I hope everything turns out OK.
 
Sounds scary. Unfortunately needle sticks are an occupational hazard that we just have to live with. RNs for example get many needle sticks during their careers. They just have to follow the protocols at their hospital and hope for the best. Most of the time it turns out fine.
 
I have been stuck several times, one of which was with a bloody scalpel. Very scary, but it is a part of the job. Though it is contreversial how much it really helps, I now always double-glove and take my time. It's easy to rush because you are nervous/ afraid of getting yelled at/etc but we all once were learning and your own safety is very important.

On the bright side, solid suture needles are thought to be pretty benign. A friend of mine had a sternal wire go into his hand on a HIV/ HepC+ patient and he was still fine. So more than likely, your husband will be OK and this will be a huge reminder how important it is to be careful.
 
sorry about the stick. chances are, however, that things will turn out ok: when securing a central line, you're suturing through skin, and there's very little patient blood.
 
I know this is scary, extremely scary. However, I have been stuck twice, once with a suture needle and once with a hollow bore needle both of the sharps had the patient's blood on them. Neither of the patients were Hep C or HIV positve as per bloodwork done immediately after the stick. I took combivir until i got their results and then stopped. It was awful and made me sick the entire time. you're right, i was more worried about Hep C too.

All and all the risk of contracting HIV or HepC is very low and you guys should just try to relax until monday. i'm sure your husband already knows this.

you guys will be fine. if anything, he will be really careful next time. although even when you think you are being careful sometimes you get stuck.

good luck
 
That can be a very scary situation... We were told that most interns will have one needlestick incident.

Anyway... there is the rule of three's. 30, 3 and 0.3. These are the percent chances of transmission of a positive patient for hep B (or C... not totally sure)/hep C (or B is i was incorrect)/HIV to the health care provider. I know that a 30% chance of transmission of hepatitis doesn't sound good, but remember that certain individuals WILL clear the virus and certain serotypes of hep will clear with IFN therapy (something like >70% of types 2 and 3).

I hope for the best.
 
cytoborg said:
Unfortunately needle sticks are an occupational hazard that we just have to live with.

I disagree.

Why should we have to live with them?

I favor mandatory testing for bloodborne pathogens before surgery.

Feel free to flame away.
 
Mandatory testing would not prevent needle sticks...
 
and would you refuse to treat these patients? too sick? I don't understand.
 
30% for Hep C, 3% for Hep B, 0.3% for HIV. I've also been stuck twice - once with a suture needle, once with a scalpel. 🙁
 
I know it's of little comfort but double gloving (always) when doing central lines is important. Avoid using the straight needle that comes in most kits. It's a lot more dangerous than a curved needle on a needle driver. Always grab a needle driver and some silk on a curved needle. Look on the bright side, it was a solid, small needle with little exposure to the bloodstream. Hope everything goes well.
 
Hello, I am a phlebotomist, but thankfully I have never been stuck... yet...

My hospital has protocols for those who have, and it is very often that this comes up. We send the exposed to the ER where they do a work up and I draw their blood and run an exposure panel. Then we run the same tests on the source patient.

There are many drugs out there for us to use if it is a high risk situation, but I think they make you very ill. Seek treatment right away... time is not on your side. You may not be able to file for workman’s comp unless you act now.

-Good luck and I hope for the best
 
Studies vary, but it's more like 30% for Hep B (if not immunized), 3% for Hep C. At least most of us have antibodies to the one with the highest transmission rate.
 
doc05 said:
and would you refuse to treat these patients? too sick? I don't understand.

The benefit to mandatory testing would be increased safety protocols prior to and during procedures, elimination of this unfair waiting game in recieving patients disease status results back, and the elimination of the patient's oft-utilized right to refuse HIV testing, which may unnecessarily keep a healthcare worker on ARVs or other potentially harmful medications for months.
 
medduck said:
Studies vary, but it's more like 30% for Hep B (if not immunized), 3% for Hep C. At least most of us have antibodies to the one with the highest transmission rate.

I was stuck by a non-hollow bore wire while wiring an inmates broken jaw last year. High risk guy - homosexual, drug abuse history etc. Did the research and found that when the device is not hollow bore it is much less likely that transmission will occur. In future procedures where risk is higher for breaks in gloves (jaw wiring, ortho devices, etc.) I wear thick orthopedic gloves over my regular gloves. Some studies postulate that there is a squeegee (sp?) effect when two pairs of gloves are worn.

So the guy tested negative, I still took the prophylactic regimen though, and Im ok.
 
Anasazi23 said:
The benefit to mandatory testing would be increased safety protocols prior to and during procedures, elimination of this unfair waiting game in recieving patients disease status results back, and the elimination of the patient's oft-utilized right to refuse HIV testing, which may unnecessarily keep a healthcare worker on ARVs or other potentially harmful medications for months.

Precisely.

Among the three (Hep B, C and HIV), the one that potentially concerns me the most is Hep C.

Near universal immunization among healthcare workers for Hep B minimizes the risk of transmission. ARVs can be used for HIV prophylaxis. Hep C's high risk of seroconversion plus the lack of effective post-exposure prophylaxis may make it the most dangerous of the three.
 
Hi,

I posted a few threads below that my husband sustained a needle stick via a suture needle on Saturday. I am a pre-med student (post-bacc) (he is a second year resident), and this whole horrible, anxiety-ridden experience has made me seriously question whether I should even go into medicine.

I know that many residents/ interns/ med students get stuck more than once, and I can't imagine going through this horrible process more than once! Has anyone taken the fear of blood-borne pathogens into account when deciding whether or not to apply to med school? I feel like how can you not? It's your life at stake. I am deathly afraid now of this ever happening to me, and while I love everything about medicine and feel it is the only profession that would fulfill me, is it worth the risk of contracting a lifelong, awful disease? I'm not sure.

I asked my husband, "how can you get back on the horse after this? How can you do another procedure involving a sharp after what you've just gone through?" He's not sure how he'll do it, but the experience has changed what sort of sub-specialty he's going to choose--i.e. probably one that has the least amount of using sharps.

Any thoughts? Yes, I know that there are other professions out there (paramedic, firefighter, police officer, etc. that are also dangerous, but I wouldn't be considering any of those, and instead would probably go for my library science degree or something.) Also, I know all the statistcs about driving and death and all that, and I live in a huge city and don't drive much, for this very reason. In other words, I tend to avoid risky behaviors in general.

Thanks,

BB
 
On a rational level, needlestick injuries are not a big deal, since they don't occur frequently and, when they occur, usually do not involve a person with transmissible diseases and, when they do, usually do not lead to tranmission with one exposure. That being said, it sucks for the person who does get a blood-borne disease.

However, it is, as with most things in life, not something that most people think about. When you drive a car, you don't get in and freak out that thousands of people are involved in car accidents daily across America. When you eat a steak, you're not worried about choking on a piece. If you do, then probably medicine isn't the right thing for you -- and I don't mean that in a "you suck, so get out" kind of way, but just being realistic since you won't be able to function. Or, alternatively, go into PM&R (MWAH HA HA HA! I always have to take my cheap shots!).
 
Actually, it's amusing that you mentioned the car and the steak in your post because those happen to be my number one and number two biggest worries that I do worry about everytime I do those things, with the blood-borne pathogen/medical issue being number three.
 
brotherbloat said:
Actually, it's amusing that you mentioned the car and the steak in your post because those happen to be my number one and number two biggest worries that I do worry about everytime I do those things, with the blood-borne pathogen/medical issue being number three.

Generalized Anxiety Disorder?

Maybe I should have went with psych
 
As someone who's planning to pursue a career in surgery, the fear of contracting a bloodborne pathogen just doesn't enter into my mind. I'll note a patient's HIV/Hep C status as part of their past medical history, but I really don't believe it affects how I feel about treating/helping them.
 
I'm sorry to say this BB, but maybe medicine is not for you. Take it from someone who has been stuck twice, high risk sticks nonetheless, and went on combivir for a month. Even after the sticks, I didn't second guess my decision to do medicine for a second. i love it too much. Keep in mind that in medicine, needlesticks are but one method of exposure. I have been exposed to TB, had blood splashed in my face during a below the knee amputation , been vomitted on, had afterbirth/placenta slush spilled all over me. You just never know what will happen. Incidentally, I plan to go into a field in which needlesticks and other exposures are likely to happen. Good luck with your future endeavors. I am sure, given my own experiences, that your husband will be fine. I never contracted anything from my needlesticks.

take care
 
It's one thing not to think about those things on a daily basis, but it's another thing to be nonchalant about it when it occurs. I wouldn't blame anyone for freaking out if they got stuck with a needle or a bloody instrument.
 
I have been stuck twice. It doesn't really wig me out to much. It did when I was a med student, just because it seems so serious.

You start to realize that the risk of transmission, even in a 'diseased' patient, is very low. (most people are stuck with suture needles) large bore hallow needles increase the risk, as well as depth of stick.

Most hospitals have needle stick policies in place and you can access the antivirals very quickly.

If this is causing you this much grief, you should reconsider. medicine is not a field without risks. If the risk is to much for you, then you have your awnser.
 
I have a few takes for you on this one:

A. If you otherwise really love medicine, there are things out there with minimal needlestick-risks; ex: PMR.

B. I am a surgery resident, and over the last few years, I have been stuck several times, one of which was a pretty big stick (bloody scalpel, crashing patient.) After that, I thought about some of the other bad things about medicine; litiginous patients, BS bureuacratic (sp?) issues, etc., and I did very seriously wonder whether it was worth putting my own health at risk. However, looking back at the times where I got stuck or splashed in the face with blood, almost all of them were preventable; in other words, I should have been wearing a mask, should have been taking my time, etc. I have since been much more cognizant of the risk and have only gotten stuck once in the last year since (it was a superfical stick in a HIV/HepC - patient.)

In other words, no, medicine is not risk-free, but there are fields where you probably have minimal exposure. Plus, should you choose one that is more "risky" you just need to be careful.
 
I'll admit I worry about it too. I think that in Peds I'll have minimal exposure to AIDS/Hepatits patients as compared to IM or surgery although that is not why I chose Peds. I always double glove in a surgery where the pt is HIV+ but the surgeons don't really seem to care.
 
It is funny that I read this post today. I am on my last week of my 2nd surgery core rotation and I nicked myself with a contaminated scalpel. It was super small(I have had bigger cuts shaving), about the size of a pin head. It bled a little. If I had been doubled gloved it wouldn't have penetrated the outer glove. My attending acted like it wasn't a big deal and he said that he has cut himself similarly several times and never does anything about it. He left it up to me to go to the ER or not. Since it was such a low risk exposure I didn't go. Prophylactic therapy is not required in my case according to the CDC, not that I would want to take those awful drugs anyway (I would, though if it were high risk). It freaked me out for a while, but the patient is not HIV or HCV positive as far as we know. Would you guys have went ahead to the ER and went through all of the exposure crap?
 
You should *always* go to the ER if for no other reason than documentation. You blood needs to be drawn (to document that you don't currently have HIV) and will be redrawn 6 mos later, regardless of wether or not you take the meds. If you then test positive, you have documentation that you were stuck with needle/scalpel. For disability reasons and legal reasons, you need this to cover yourself.

Also, unless you have a documented, recent HIV test, there is no way to know if you patient is HIV. You can always go to the ER, take the meds for the first day or so while consent is being gotten on the patient. If the patient is neg, most people stop then. Many places now have rapid HIV testing which will let you know within 24 hours.

Needle sticks happen. It is a risk. However, they should never be taken lightly adn you should always take careful precautions.
 
fourthyearmed said:
I'll admit I worry about it too. I think that in Peds I'll have minimal exposure to AIDS/Hepatits patients as compared to IM or surgery although that is not why I chose Peds. I always double glove in a surgery where the pt is HIV+ but the surgeons don't really seem to care.

aren't there lots of HIV+/AIDS patients in peds?? at least at my hospital, there seems to be...
 
roja said:
You should *always* go to the ER if for no other reason than documentation. You blood needs to be drawn (to document that you don't currently have HIV) and will be redrawn 6 mos later, regardless of wether or not you take the meds. If you then test positive, you have documentation that you were stuck with needle/scalpel. For disability reasons and legal reasons, you need this to cover yourself.

Also, unless you have a documented, recent HIV test, there is no way to know if you patient is HIV. You can always go to the ER, take the meds for the first day or so while consent is being gotten on the patient. If the patient is neg, most people stop then. Many places now have rapid HIV testing which will let you know within 24 hours.

Needle sticks happen. It is a risk. However, they should never be taken lightly adn you should always take careful precautions.

Yeah, you are right. I guess I should go to the ER. The window for the meds is 24 hours. It happened at about 9 this morning so if I go tonight I will still be in that window. I shouldn't have let my attending marginalize it. Live and learn, I guess.
 
Even if you choose not to go to the ED, you should go for documentation part. The MD's there can explain to you the risk/benifits of taking the meds. You should also look into adressing the family/pt regarding having the pt tested for HIV, given that you were stuck. Most pt's/families dont have issues with it. (HCV and HBV should also be drawn but don't have to have consent.)

There are several movements across the country to waive the need for consent in light of health care providor needle sticks.
 
doc05 said:
aren't there lots of HIV+/AIDS patients in peds?? at least at my hospital, there seems to be...

I'm sure there are quite a few out there unfortunately but I've spent about 7 months on Pediatric rotations at 4 different hospitals and have never seen one (granted I haven't done a ID rotation). On the other hand, during my 2 months of IM I think every 3rd patient I saw had either HIV/AIDS or Hepatitis. My point is that it's just not as common in kids as in adults in the U.S.
 
Would anyone choose what med school they go to, if given the chance, based on where it's located and how that state/city ranks in HIV cases? For instance, of course, it's going to be more on your mind in a hospital in San Fran than one in Vermont. I, myself, will be choosing a med school based on this factor, if I get more than one acceptance, and I'm not planning to apply to any in any major metropolitan areas.

Anyone else feel similarly? At least, then, a small amount of the constant worry is mitigated, because fewer patients are likely to be infected at your particular hospital.
 
brotherbloat said:
Would anyone choose what med school they go to, if given the chance, based on where it's located and how that state/city ranks in HIV cases? For instance, of course, it's going to be more on your mind in a hospital in San Fran than one in Vermont. I, myself, will be choosing a med school based on this factor, if I get more than one acceptance, and I'm not planning to apply to any in any major metropolitan areas.

Anyone else feel similarly? At least, then, a small amount of the constant worry is mitigated, because fewer patients are likely to be infected at your particular hospital.


I'm sorry, forgive me for saying this.....but you should not be applying to medical school. I don't think you will be able deal with it very well. HIV is NOT confined or even remotedly limited to large cities. You are in for a big surprise if you think that going to medical school in a less urban setting will provide even the slighest amount of protection from HIV or other infections/transmittable diseases. I don't mean to sound harsh.

the reality is that the person sitting next to you in church/temple or the person serving you dinner in a restaurant may have HIV, going into any medical center, be it in San Fran or Vermont makes it even more likely that you are near people with HIV (since it is a place where people seek treatment for HIV and its co-morbidities). I think that your paranoia over HIV may be overwhelming you a bit.

Also, I'm not sure what you are implying with the statement...."For instance, of course, it's going to be more on your mind in a hospital in San Fran than one in Vermont" It never once, until you brought it up, crossed my mind and I disagree with you.

Good luck in all your future endeavors, BB
 
🙄

While HIV is everywhere, let's not go around pretending that it's not much more prevalent and concentrated in urban populations. The whole "everyone in America knows someone with HIV/AIDS!!!" scare tactic is played out.
 
Some gov't web site even lists HIV/AIDS statistics by state. By looking at that chart and clicking on a state, you can see that North Dakota has far fewer cases than New York, for instance.

Having just gone through the horrible anguish of dealing with my husband's needlestick, and its repurcussions, I feel like you can never be too careful, and if I have more than one med school choice, I feel like why not choose the "safer" one? And I disagree with the fact that you'll necessarily come into contact with an HIV/AIDS patient in your medical training. My husband is a second year resident, and in his entire medical career thus far he's only had to treat 3 HIV/AIDs patients, and this is also going to med school/residency in the same place (an urban location, surprisingly.)

Plus, he says if he can, he avoids doing procedures on these patients, by offering the opportunity to another resident, thus further diminishing his risk.

Maybe some people aren't quite as freaked out over the small, but possible possibilty of having a horrible illness for the rest of their lives, but just having vicariously experienced the horror of waiting and imagining the different scenarios with my husband, I feel like you never can be too careful.

Thanks,

-BB
 
kinetic said:
🙄

While HIV is everywhere, let's not go around pretending that it's not much more prevalent and concentrated in urban populations. The whole "everyone in America knows someone with HIV/AIDS!!!" scare tactic is played out.

whether it's played out or not is irrelevant, its true
 
April04 said:
whether it's played out or not is irrelevant, its true

OK, since you say so.
 
These threads are an enigma to me. Why? They inevitably lead to a forum that does little more than incite hostility.

I live in an area of the country that is generally considered "rural". So what does that mean? Nothing. Patients who are HIV+ (or any other ailment for that matter) still have to see doctors; since there are fewer doctors/hospitals here, there is a significant chance that you will have to deal with such patients. Moreover, if you are really scared of the HIV virus, a rural area can have its own drawback: namely, people here don't discuss the disease, and patients are much more likely to try to withhold their positive status.

Finally, why would anyone go into medicine who is scared to deal with disease? Have you read the oath that you will be expected to uphold? If yes, does it mean anything to you, or is it akin to the disclaimers that you are required to initial before making a purchase -- you know those that require you to "AGREE" or "DISAGREE" , and you just agree because it is expedient.

As for your significant other, the fact that a resident would pawn off a high risk patient on his/her fellow residents indicates that he/she cares for NO ONE but him/her self. I'd be a little wary of any reationship with that person.
 
mosche has some very valid points.

BB- if you are serious about going to med school, you need to rethink it. your job as a physician is to see patients. And if you think you are going to avoid it, simply by location, you are mistaken.

HIV/AIDS statistics in the US:
At the end of 2003, the CDC estimates that 405,926 persons were living with AIDS in the USA.

Of these,

* 36% were white
* 42% were black
* 20% were Hispanic
* 2% were of other race/ethnicity.

Of the adults and adolescents1 with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,

* 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
* 22% were injection drug users (IDU)
* 11% were exposed through heterosexual contact
* 8% were both MSM and IDU.

Of the 88,815 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,

* 63% were exposed through heterosexual contact
* 35% were exposed through injection drug use.

An estimated 1,998 children were living with AIDS at the end of 2003.

Persons with AIDS are surviving longer and are contributing to a steady increase in the number of people living with AIDS. This trend will continue as long as the number of people with a new AIDS diagnosis exceeds the number of people dying each year.
AIDS diagnoses and deaths

IThere were an estimated 43,171 diagnoses in 2003. In total, an estimated 929,985 people have been diagnosed with AIDS.

The number of deaths among people with AIDS remained relatively stable in the period 1999-2003. In the latter year, there were an estimated 18,017 deaths. Since the beginning of the epidemic, an estimated 524,060 people with AIDS have died in the USA.
Who is affected by AIDS?

During the 1990s, the epidemic shifted steadily toward a growing proportion of AIDS cases among black people and Hispanics and in women, and toward a decreasing proportion in MSM, although this group remains the largest single exposure group. Black people and Hispanics have been disproportionately affected since the early years of the epidemic. In absolute numbers, blacks have outnumbered whites in new AIDS diagnoses and deaths since 1996, and in the number of people living with AIDS since 1998.

From 1999 to 2003, the estimated number of AIDS cases decreased slightly among white people and increased slightly among black people. Meanwhile the number of Hispanics diagnosed with AIDS rose by an estimated 8%, and diagnoses in Asians/Pacific Islanders and American Indians/Alaska Natives also increased.

In the period 1999-2003, the estimated number of females diagnosed with AIDS increased by 15%, while male diagnoses grew by just 1%. The estimated annual number of AIDS diagnoses in people infected through heterosexual sex has risen each year since 1999, and MSM cases have been increasing since 2001. Meanwhile, IDU cases have been declining in number.

During 2003 there were an estimated 59 paediatric AIDS diagnoses; this is less than a third of the estimated number in 1999. The decline in paediatric AIDS incidence is associated with the implementation of Public Health Service guidelines. These guidelines include universal counselling and voluntary HIV testing of pregnant women and the use of zidovudine by HIV-infected pregnant women and their newborn infants.

The age group 35-44 years represented 41% of all AIDS cases diagnosed in 2003. Nearly three-quarters of all people who have died with AIDS did not live to the age of 45.
HIV statistics

At the end of 2003, the CDC estimates that there were 351,614 persons living with HIV/AIDS in the 33 areas which have a history of confidential name-based HIV reporting3. However, the true number of persons in the USA with HIV/AIDS is likely to be closer to one million.


During 2003, an estimated 32,048 new diagnoses of HIV infection were reported from the 33 areas with a history of confidential name-based reporting. Of these, 72% were among adult or adolescent males, 27% were among adult or adolescent females, and less than 1% were among children under 13 years of age. Recent HIV reports represent a mixture of people with recent infection and others who may have been infected in the past but are only now being diagnosed.


Your implication that SF (with a largley gay population) has a higher incidince of HIV/AIDS is a niave assumption. And statistically is incorrect.

If you are a medical student, you WILL have to deal with HIV. It is not an uncommon disease. You duty as a physician is to be familiar with this disease, to some degree. Are you going ot refuse to examine a patient? refuse to care for them?

And you spouse pawning off his procedure is a disgraceful act. I hope for the sake of his/her fellow residents, that someone reports it to the residency director and reprimands him. Its inappropriate, inconsiderate and truly embarrassing that a resident would try to decrease his risk by INCREASING someone elses risk.

HIV is a risk in medicine. However, if you use universal precautions and are aware of your environment (aka sharps) your risk is minimal.
 
Look, there's no reason to be rude to the OP. It's a valid concern about HIV and there are many misconceptions among non-medical people. Everyone think back to being pre-med, we all lived in a different world. As I said before, I worry too. But that hasn't stopped me from taking part in surgeries or helping in the trauma room. When you're immersed in the medical field, you really just stop thinking about things like that. What happened to her boyfriend would scare me too. On the other hand, I think my mom worries about me getting needle sticks more than I do. To the OP - be safe, be aware, be careful. And remember that well-to-do teenage white girl from Texas is just as likely to have contracted AIDS from her drug addict boyfriend as the gay guy in San Fransciso is to have it! Preconceptions no longer apply.
 
Top Bottom