Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: An attempt to develop a Health Care Worker Risk Assessment Scale to evaluate potential for exposure to blood-borne pathogens was made in late 1989 through 1990. The research questions were as follows: (1) Can a scale be developed to assign weights to variables that influence health care workers' risk of exposure to blood-borne pathogens? (2) If so, what variables would be included?
Methods: A five-round Delphi technique was used with 26 panel members from 15 U.S. states and the United Kingdom who were recognized experts in strategies to reduce health care workers' risk of exposure to blood-borne pathogens. The scale included four elements, each scored up to 40 points. Elements were as follows: (1) potential route of exposure, (2) experience of health care worker and cooperation of patient, (3) prevalence of blood-borne pathogens, and (4) difficulty in managing the situation. A minimum score of 20 indicated an extremely low-risk situation; a maximum score of 160 indicated an extremely high-risk situation.
Results: Consensus was achieved among the panel members in identifying the elements that contributed to risk for exposure to blood-borne pathogens and in applying the scale to carefully worded vignettes. This required several modifications of both the scale and the vignettes to ensure consistent interpretation of the terms used. In all vignette situations, the risk-abatement strategy was specific to the situation depicted in the vignette and not to the task itself; the value of a numeric scale is thus questionable.
Conclusions: Even with the participation of 26 expert panelists, we were unable to develop a numeric scale to objectively quantify risk in such a way that risk-reduction strategies could be based on the scale rather than on the specific risk elements in a situation. Instead of attempting to use a scale such as this to quantify risk objectively, educators or clinicians may be better advised to teach health care workers the four scale elements so that health care workers can subjectively use these elements to evaluate and modify their own risk situations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0196-6553(95)90003-9 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!