Laser use and safety.

PubMed · 1428901

Laser use and safety.

Abstract

This Guidance Article is an update of an article published in a special issue of Health Devices entitled "Lasers in Medicine--An Introduction" (13[8], June 1984). Although surgical lasers have a good overall safety record, they do expose patients, physicians, and other clinical staff to serious risks. Laser hazards can cause injury, disability, or even death: hospital staff have been burned by misdirected laser beams, technicians and maintenance personnel have received eye injuries while working on lasers and have been exposed to hazardous chemicals while changing laser dyes, and patients have died from injuries resulting from fires ignited by laser energy. Laser accidents most commonly result from misdirection of the laser beam. Direct or reflected radiation can burn skin, hair, or, more seriously, the cornea or retina, causing permanent damage. Misdirected laser energy can also cause ignition of surgical drapes, tracheal tubes, or the patient's hair. Also, a frequent by-product of laser-tissue interactions is laser plume, or smoke. Its acrid smell and particulate matter irritate the eyes, nose, and lungs and cause nausea; it is also a suspected vector for transmitting infectious materials, such as the human papilloma virus (HPV) associated with condyloma (a wartlike lesion) and cervical cancer. The risks are not limited to patients and those directly involved in using and maintaining lasers. Many laser procedures are performed in areas outside the controlled environment of the surgical suite; patients in a waiting area or even passersby could conceivably walk into an accessible laser treatment room, such as a doctor's office, and inadvertently be exposed to a direct or reflected beam.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Equipment Safety Equipment and Supplies, Hospital Laser Therapy Lasers Maintenance Professional Staff Committees Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

1992. Laser use and safety.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1428901/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Using failure mode and effects analysis to plan implementation of smart i.v. pump technology.

PURPOSE: Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was used to evaluate a smart i.v. pump as it was implemented into a redesigned medication-use process. SUMMARY: A multidisciplinary team conducted a FMEA to guide the implementation of a smart i.v. pump that was designed to prevent pump programming errors. The smart i.v. pump was equipped with a dose-error reduction system that included a pre-defined drug library in which dosage limits were set for each medication. Monitoring for potential failures and errors occurred for three months postimplementation of FMEA. Specific measures were used to determine the success of the actions that were implemented as a result of the FMEA. The FMEA process at the hospital identified key failure modes in the medication process with the use of the old and new pumps, and actions were taken to avoid errors and adverse events. I.V. pump software and hardware design changes were also recommended. Thirteen of the 18 failure modes reported in practice after pump implementation had been identified by the team. A beneficial outcome of FMEA was the development of a multidisciplinary team that provided the infrastructure for safe technology implementation and effective event investigation after implementation. With the continual updating of i.v. pump software and hardware after implementation, FMEA can be an important starting place for safe technology choice and implementation and can produce site experts to follow technology and process changes over time. CONCLUSION: FMEA was useful in identifying potential problems in the medication-use process with the implementation of new smart i.v. pumps. Monitoring for system failures and errors after implementation remains necessary.

Equipment Safety↗

PubMed2006

Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study.

A four-year prospective study was undertaken at the University Hospital Birmingham National Health Service Foundation Trust to evaluate the effect of the introduction of a range of safety hypodermic needle devices on the number of reported needlestick injuries (NSIs). Data on the number of reported NSIs for four clinical areas began in 2001. Following an enhanced sharps awareness strategy in 2002, the number of NSIs reduced from 16.9/100,000 devices used in 2001 to 13.9/100,000 devices (P=0.813). In 2003, when only standard training was provided, the number of NSIs increased to 20/100,000 devices. However, the subsequent introduction of three safety needle devices with concomitant training resulted in a significant reduction in the number of reported NSIs to 6/100,000 devices in 2004 (P=0.045). User satisfaction and acceptance of the safety needles was also very favourable. These results suggest that when safety needle devices are introduced into the clinical setting and appropriate training is given, a significant reduction in the number of occupationally acquired NSIs may ensue.

Equipment Safety↗

PubMed2006

Efficacy of safety-engineered device implementation in the prevention of percutaneous injuries: a review of published studies.

Nearly 6 years have passed since the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000 was signed into law. We reviewed studies published since 1995 that evaluated the effect of safety-engineered device implementation on rates of percutaneous injury (PI) among health care workers. Criteria for inclusion of studies in the review were as follows: the intervention used to reduce PIs was a needleless system or a device with engineered sharps-injury protection, the outcome measurements included a PI rate, the intervention was evaluated in a defined population with clear comparison groups in clinical settings, and outcomes and denominators used for rate calculations were objectively measured using consistent methodology. All 17 studies reported substantial decreases in device-associated or overall PI rates after device implementation (range of reduction, 22%-100%). The majority of studies (n=12) were uncontrolled before-after trials with limited ability to control for confounding variables. In addition, implementation of safety-engineered devices was often accompanied by other interventions, and direct measurement of outcomes was not performed. Nevertheless, safety-engineered devices are an important component in PI prevention.

Equipment Safety↗