PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Medical Waste Disposal”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

Monitoring of presterile disposable syringes and needles marketed in Pune.

Out of hundred syringes and hundred needles (both presterile, disposable) tested, 41 syringes (41%) and 6 needles (6%) showed aerobic growth. Forty of the above syringes were tested simultaneously for fungi and anaerobes. Fungi isolated were 5.7% and no anaerobe was grown. Fifty glass syringes and fifty needles autoclaved in the departmental laboratory served as controls and did not show any growth. As a preventive measure, proper disposal of used disposable material should be made mandatory so that it does not find its way into the market. Or has the time come to switch back to the former conventional practice of using in house autoclaved articles?

Disposable Equipment↗
PubMed1995

How to cut costs in your solid waste management program.

In the past 10 years, waste management has become a significant budget item. Previously, it was a tertiary function, coming after clinical and other facility support functions. But now that environmental concerns have spread and environmental responsibility becomes an accepted part of facility management, waste management is now a central issue. This document examines several ways to cut costs in a waste management program, primarily in the area of solid waste.

Conservation of Natural Resources↗
PubMed1994

Medical student experience with AIDS and needle disposal behaviour.

A survey of medical students at Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, was conducted to investigate needle-handling behaviour with HIV positive patients. Recapping a used needle increases the students' risk of a needle stick. There were 160 responses, yielding a response rate of 27.6%. Students placed used needles in the sharps container without recapping the needle significantly more often if they had experience with a patient with AIDS. There was no correlation between personal exposure to contaminated material (being stuck or exposure to other contaminated material) and correct needle disposal behaviour. Women students (single or married) only used increased precautions during sex about one-third of the time, a figure similar to women psychiatric patients. Single male students used increased precautions 41.5% of the time, while married male students used increased precautions 8.7% of the time.

Female↗
PubMed2001

Clinical waste management.

Every producer of controlled waste in the UK has a duty of care under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to dispose of the waste in a manner which takes appropriate care and consideration to ensure that it does not cause harm to human health or pollute the environment. This article looks at what is meant by 'duty of care' to ensure clinical waste produced by laboratories or in a health care setting is disposed of in the correct manner.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Sharps disposal containers.

Sharps disposal containers are specially designed containers into which used needles and other medical-waste sharps are discarded. They are intended to protect hospital employees--including sharps users and other workers downstream--from sharps injuries that result from contact with needles and other sharp devices. Since our last Evaluation of sharps containers in August-September 1993, manufacturers have introduced various new designs that may further reduce the risk of needlesticks and other sharp-object injuries (SOIs). These designs are intended to prevent users from overfilling the sharps container; they are also easier to use and better constructed. In this study, we evaluated eight models of sharps containers from four suppliers. None of the evaluated devices meet all our criteria; they all have disadvantages that could result in a needlestick. However, the devices that we rate Preferred or Acceptable meet our basic requirements for preventing SOIs and perform satisfactorily against most of our criteria. The eight evaluated models run the gamut: one is Preferred, four are Acceptable, two are Not Recommended, and one is Unacceptable.

Equipment Design↗
PubMed2002

Radioactivity appearing at landfills in household trash of nuclear medicine patients: much ado about nothing?

The U.S. NRC in 1997 removed its arbitrary 1.11 GBq (30 mCi) rule, which had been in existence for almost 50 y, and now many more patients receiving radionuclide therapy in nuclear medicine can be treated as outpatients. However, another problem has the potential to limit the short-lived reality of outpatient treatment unless nuclear medicine practitioners and the health physics community gets involved. Radioactive articles in the household trash of nuclear medicine patients are appearing at solid waste landfills that have installed radiation monitors to prevent the entry of any detectable radioactivity, and alarms are going off around the country. These monitors are set to alarm at extremely low activity levels. Some states may actually hold licensees responsible if a patient's radioactive household trash is discovered in a solid waste stream; this is another major reason [along with continued use of the 1.11 GBq (30 mCi) rule] why many licensees are still not releasing their radionuclide therapy patients. This is in spite of the fact that the radioactivity contained in released nuclear medicine therapy patients, let alone the much lower activity level contained in their potentially radioactive household wastes, poses a minimal hazard to the public health and safety or to the environment. Currently, there are no regulations governing the disposal of low-activity, rapidly-decaying radioactive materials found in the household trash of nuclear medicine patients, the performance of landfill radiation monitors, or the necessity of spectrometry equipment. Resources are, therefore, being unnecessarily expended by regulators and licensees in responding to radiation monitor alarms that are caused by these unregulated short-lived materials that may be mixed with municipal trash. Recommendations are presented that would have the effect of modifying the existing landfill regulations and practices so as to allow the immediate disposal of such wastes.

Humans↗
PubMed2003

Investigation of single-use versus reusable infectious waste containers as potential sources of microbial contamination.

BACKGROUND: Laws require that infectious waste be segregated from noninfectious waste. Companies certified to dispose of infectious waste offer both reusable and single-use containers. The focus of this study was to determine if there would be a microbiologic advantage to the use of one type of container over another in a burn hospital. METHODS: Monthly swab cultures were taken from the tops of >250 infectious waste containers during 2 years. Bacteria and fungi were identified. In a substudy swab cultures were taken from an area of reusable tops before and after cleaning to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning on both the number and type of microbes present. Infection rates for acute patients were compared before and after control measures were instituted to decrease microbial transfer from infectious waste containers to patients. RESULTS: Cultures taken from reusable boxes when received from the container company showed that >99% were contaminated with bacteria or fungi; most were normal environmental or skin flora, but some cultures showed microorganisms that can be potentially harmful to patients with compromised immunity. Wiping the lids with a phenolic disinfectant decreased both the total microbial load (P <.001) and the variety of microbes present (P <.001). In contrast, only 10% of the incoming single-use boxes showed any contamination. Infection rates dropped from 5.8 to 3.2 per 100 burn patients (P <.05) after the institution of cleaning and other changes made to decrease the possibility of microbial transfer from the infectious waste boxes to the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Upon delivery, significantly fewer single-use infectious waste boxes were contaminated than reusable ones (P <.001). Extra infection control measures were needed when reusable infectious waste boxes were used in areas housing patients with compromised immunity. Facilities need be aware of the possible contamination of reusable infectious waste containers with microorganisms capable of causing nosocomial infections in patients who are compromised.

Burn Units↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Sharp thinking.

Nurses are the healthcare professionals most at risk from neeldestick and sharps injuries, according to the latest figures from the RCN's EPINet project. During 2004, 1,990 injuries were reported from the 20 self-selecting participating sites. Nurses sustained 43 per cent of these injuries. Disposable syringes and needles were the most common equipment to cause injury. Although discouraged, 4 per cent of injuries occurred during recapping of needles. Just under a third of injuries were sustained by staff other than the original user of the sharp.

Accidents, Occupational↗