Exposure ?

[MariB]

How far did ya read? I read most of it, and it did say it was considered an exposure and post exposure treatment should be considered.

It also said in that study. Below that it said something about it could be higher in places where they don't where proper protection.

[ERDoc]

ERDoc, here are some guidelines from the CDC website. Read Risk for Occupational Transmission of HCV. It clearly says in black and white Transmission rarely occurs from mucous membrane exposures to blood, and no transmission in HCP has been documented from intact or nonintact skin exposures to blood.

Let the pissing match begin.

It's funny how you conveniently missed the part about HepB and only commented on HepC.

"Although percutaneous injuries are among the most efficient modes of HBV transmission, these exposures probably account for only a minority of HBV infections among HCP. In several investigations of nosocomial hepatitis B outbreaks, most infected HCP could not recall an overt percutaneous injury (27,28), although in some studies, up to one third of infected HCP recalled caring for a patient who was HBsAg-positive (29,30). In addition, HBV has been demonstrated to survive in dried blood at room temperature on environmental surfaces for at least 1 week (31). Thus, HBV infections that occur in HCP with no history of nonoccupational exposure or occupational percutaneous injury might have resulted from direct or indirect blood or body fluid exposures that inoculated HBV into cutaneous scratches, abrasions, burns, other lesions, or on mucosal surfaces (32--34). The potential for HBV transmission through contact with environmental surfaces has been demonstrated in investigations of HBV outbreaks among patients and staff of hemodialysis units (35--37)."

[EMS4Life11]

Let the pissing match begin.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm just really annoyed how instead of people focusing on my question they focus on themselves and act like there the OSHA bloodborne police. I understand that i should have used gloves. It was an accident ( they happen ) and most of the time I use gloves on a call. I've had 1 exposure prior to this that I reported and was assessed for. All I wanted to know was if I was at risk of infection. Like I said in my narrative, The small ammount of blood ONLY touched my intact fingertips. The blood never was in direct contact with the cuts on top of my hand that were most likely scabbed over. The only reason I worried was thinking maybe by using a hand wipe I could have spread the virus near my cuts even though I used a seperate hand wipe to clean off the blood and then another to clean my whole hand.

[Just Plain Ruff]

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm just really annoyed how instead of people focusing on my question they focus on themselves and act like there the OSHA bloodborne police. I understand that i should have used gloves. It was an accident ( they happen ) and most of the time I use gloves on a call. I've had 1 exposure prior to this that I reported and was assessed for. All I wanted to know was if I was at risk of infection. Like I said in my narrative, The small ammount of blood ONLY touched my intact fingertips. The blood never was in direct contact with the cuts on top of my hand that were most likely scabbed over. The only reason I worried was thinking maybe by using a hand wipe I could have spread the virus near my cuts even though I used a seperate hand wipe to clean off the blood and then another to clean my whole hand.

This would have been avoided had you been fully transparant with your explanation and question. See how clarity of asking questions makes things easier.

Now we have more to go on and we can possibly answer your questions better. But I wonder (anecdotally) if you will listen to any of our explanations or answers.

You never asked if we thought you could have spread it around with the sanitizer.

The bottom line answer is possibly. I don't really know how quickly hand sanitizer kills the HBV or HCV virus but if the virus can live on a surface in a dried blood spot for several days if not longer, then I suspect that the hand sanitizer did not Kill all of the virus and YES you were and are at risk of getting a Communicable disease thus the underlying need to wear gloves. Does that make sense? Had you have had gloves on then they would have at least provided a barrier to your areas of the skin that were broken. That is also the reason why I believe wholeheartedly that you should report this incident to your Infection control team.

Take that however you wish to take it.

But keep this in mind, in talking to the infectious control nurse at one of the major hospitals in the Baltimore area, she said that you had an exposure and if you had not reported the exposure you could be determined ineligible for coverage but most likely you would be covered. I gave her the information that you gave us in your sporadic posts and she did say you did have an exposure.

I'm sure ERDoc will tell you the same.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Captain ToHellWithItAll

[MariB]

Why didn't you explain that better? Why on the other site did you say you don't use gloves unless you know the person has a disease?

Nobody is acting like OSHA police, we are saying with body fluids present you should use gloves and some of us states we use gloves on all 911 responses

Then some of us said we don't use them on transfers without body fluids present and apparently that means we are idiots, but oh well lol

[ERDoc]

You are looking for an answer to a theoretic question on a microscopic scale. We can sit here and argue both sides but there is no true good answer. The BEST answer is yes, you had blood on you that got near open wounds so, personally, until proven otherwise I would err on the side of caution and call it a possible exposure. You also have gotten the tone you have gotten because you asked the same thing on another website which many members are also members of. Did you think you were going to get a different answer?

[EMS4Life11]

The BEST answer is yes, you had blood on you that got near open wounds so, personally, until proven otherwise I would err on the side of caution and call it a possible exposure.

Blood did not get near my wounds and the wounds that I had were non bleeding ones that were if I can remember almost or fully scabbed over. That's why I was wondering if I could of spread the virus near my cuts because of the hand sanitizer.

[island emt]

stop typing and read what people with decades of experience are trying to tell you.

[paramedicmike]

Blood did not get near my wounds and the wounds that I had were non bleeding ones that were if I can remember almost or fully scabbed over. That's why I was wondering if I could of spread the virus near my cuts because of the hand sanitizer.

But you cannot remember definitively and you are here asking for what we think. We are telling you what we think. Just because it's not what you want to hear doesn't mean it's wrong.

You came here expressing concern that you could have had an exposure. The group seems to agree with you that yes, you could have had an exposure and you need to follow up with your infection control officer accordingly. Trying to argue fine points, about which you cannot even definitively remember, is silly and a waste of your time.

Report it. Follow up on it. And put on gloves next time.

[ERDoc]

/>

Blood did not get near my wounds and the wounds that I had were non bleeding ones that were if I can remember almost or fully scabbed over. That's why I was wondering if I could of spread the virus near my cuts because of the hand sanitizer.

You've gotten answers from several people. I'm not sure what else you are looking for. The only prudent advice we can give you at this point is to contact your infection control officer, the CDC or OSHA.