|
|
|
Messages Forum>
Blood borne Pathogen
Daniel Rocha, WV
Guest
Jul 02, 2008
7:31 AM
|
Is it a violation of 29 CFR 1910.1030 for a medical facility not to perform "rapid HIV antibody testing" on a source individual after an exposure incident?
|
thomaskappil
5 posts
Jul 02, 2008
9:54 PM
|
The bloodborne pathogens standard provides that "the source individual's blood shall be tested as soon as feasible" after an exposure incident and after consent is obtained [29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(3)(ii)(A)]. At the current time there are at least four FDA-approved tests available for "rapid HIV antibody testing," which usually can confirm negative HIV status in less than an hour after blood is drawn from a source individual. They are widely available, easy to use, and inexpensive. Standard enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing can take a much longer time, especially if facilities to perform the tests are not available locally. Therefore, an employer's failure to use rapid HIV antibody testing when testing as required by paragraph 1910.1030(f)(3)(ii)(A) would usually be considered a violation of that provision. The use of rapid HIV antibody testing is supported by the current CDC recommendations for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP).
The CDC states that having a "rapid HIV test could result in decreased use of PEP and spare personnel both undue anxiety and adverse effects of antiretroviral PEP." The document goes on to note that "rapid HIV testing of source patients can facilitate making timely decisions regarding use of HIV PEP after occupational exposures to sources of unknown HIV status."
|
|
|
