TRADITIONAL CANISTER-BASED OPEN WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM VERSUS CLOSED SYSTEM: HAZARDOUS EXPOSURE PREVENTION AND OPERATING THEATRE STAFF SATISFACTION.

ORNAC journal Pub Date : 2016-06-01
M Horn, N Patel, D M MacLellan, N Millard
{"title":"TRADITIONAL CANISTER-BASED OPEN WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM VERSUS CLOSED SYSTEM: HAZARDOUS EXPOSURE PREVENTION AND OPERATING THEATRE STAFF SATISFACTION.","authors":"M Horn,&nbsp;N Patel,&nbsp;D M MacLellan,&nbsp;N Millard","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Exposure to blood and body fluids is a major concern to health care professionals working in operating rooms (ORs). Thus, it is essential that hospitals use fluid waste management systems that minimise risk to staff, while maximising efficiency.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The current study compared the utility of a 'closed' system with a traditional canister-based 'open' system in the OR in a private hospital setting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 arthroscopy, urology, and orthopaedic cases were observed. The closed system was used in five, four, and six cases, respectively and the open system was used in nine, two, and four cases, respectively. The average number of opportunities for staff to be exposed to hazardous fluids were fewer for the closed system when compared to the open during arthroscopy and urology procedures. The open system required nearly 3.5 times as much staff time for set-up, maintenance during procedures, and post-procedure disposal of waste. Theatre staff expressed greater satisfaction with the closed system than with the open.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, compared with the open system, the closed system offers a less hazardous and more efficient method of disposing of fluid waste generated in the OR.</p>","PeriodicalId":89707,"journal":{"name":"ORNAC journal","volume":"34 2","pages":"36-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ORNAC journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Exposure to blood and body fluids is a major concern to health care professionals working in operating rooms (ORs). Thus, it is essential that hospitals use fluid waste management systems that minimise risk to staff, while maximising efficiency.

Method: The current study compared the utility of a 'closed' system with a traditional canister-based 'open' system in the OR in a private hospital setting.

Results: A total of 30 arthroscopy, urology, and orthopaedic cases were observed. The closed system was used in five, four, and six cases, respectively and the open system was used in nine, two, and four cases, respectively. The average number of opportunities for staff to be exposed to hazardous fluids were fewer for the closed system when compared to the open during arthroscopy and urology procedures. The open system required nearly 3.5 times as much staff time for set-up, maintenance during procedures, and post-procedure disposal of waste. Theatre staff expressed greater satisfaction with the closed system than with the open.

Conclusion: In conclusion, compared with the open system, the closed system offers a less hazardous and more efficient method of disposing of fluid waste generated in the OR.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
传统的基于罐的开放式废物管理系统与封闭式系统:危险暴露预防和手术室员工满意度。
简介:接触血液和体液是在手术室(ORs)工作的卫生保健专业人员的主要关注点。因此,医院必须使用液体废物管理系统,以最大限度地降低工作人员的风险,同时最大限度地提高效率。方法:目前的研究比较了“封闭”系统的效用与传统的罐为基础的“开放”系统在私人医院设置的手术室。结果:共观察关节镜、泌尿外科、骨科病例30例。封闭系统分别为5例、4例和6例,开放系统分别为9例、2例和4例。在关节镜检查和泌尿外科手术过程中,与开放系统相比,封闭系统中工作人员暴露于危险液体的平均机会较少。开放式系统需要近3.5倍的工作人员时间进行设置、程序中的维护和程序后废物处理。剧院工作人员对封闭系统比开放系统更满意。结论:综上所述,与开放式系统相比,封闭式系统是一种危害更小、效率更高的处理手术室液体废物的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EVALUATION OF THE SURGICAL TRAY OPENING PROCEDURE IN OPERATING SUITES: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. HAN DOVER BETWEEN ANAESTHETISTS AND POST-ANAESTHETIC CARE UNIT NURSING STAFF USING ISBAR PRINCIPLES: A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STUDY. 50YEARS ON - BC PERIOPERATIVE NURSING ORGANIZATION ATTAINS A MILESTONE IF WE WANT TO KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE WE CAME FROM. BACKTO BASICS: ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING. BLOOD SAFETY IN THE OR: THE BLOODYTRUTH.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1