Sharps disposal: difference between revisions
Diff·revision 3 → 4·15:34, 25 May 2026
Difference between revision 3 and revision 4 of Sharps disposal. 13 lines changed; the page grew by 1,452 bytes.
| Revision 3 — 21:56, 23 May 2026 NotabilityNoa (talk) add the note that a smaller diluent volume raises concentration, not dose 4,439 bytes +2,399 | Revision 4 — 15:34, 25 May 2026 GradientGus (talk) state that swirling rather than shaking is the handling convention, sourced 5,891 bytes +1,452 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | ; Empty glass vials : A [[vial]] is not a sharp while intact. Broken glass is. Waste guidance in several jurisdictions accordingly treats pharmaceutical glass as sharps waste when it has contained a medicinal product, on the grounds that it will break in the waste stream.{{r|htm0701}} | 22 | ; Empty glass vials : A [[vial]] is not a sharp while intact. Broken glass is. Waste guidance in several jurisdictions accordingly treats pharmaceutical glass as sharps waste when it has contained a medicinal product, on the grounds that it will break in the waste stream.{{r|htm0701}} |
| 23 | 23 | ||
| + | 24 | == Hazard basis == | |
| + | 25 | The evidence base for sharps regulation is the epidemiology of occupational percutaneous injury, which is unusually well characterised because it has been under structured surveillance in several countries for decades. | |
| + | 26 | ||
| + | 27 | |+ Reported transmission risk following a single percutaneous exposure | |
| + | 28 | | !Pathogen | Source status | Reported risk | Basis | | |
| + | 29 | |---|---|---|---| | |
| + | 30 | | Hepatitis B virus | HBeAg-positive | 22–31% clinical hepatitis; 37–62% serological evidence of infection | Prospective series, pre-vaccine era | | |
| + | 31 | | Hepatitis B virus | HBeAg-negative | 1–6% clinical hepatitis; 23–37% serological | Prospective series | | |
| + | 32 | | Hepatitis C virus | Anti-HCV positive | approximately 1.8%, reported range 0–7% | Prospective seroconversion studies | | |
| + | 33 | | HIV | Positive, untreated | approximately 0.3% (95% CI 0.2–0.5%) | Pooled prospective studies | | |
| + | 34 | ||
| + | 35 | Figures are those given in the United States Public Health Service guidelines and are widely reproduced.{{r|mmwr2001}} Three features of the table shape practice. The ordering — hepatitis B far above hepatitis C, hepatitis C far above HIV — is the reverse of the ordering of public concern. The hepatitis B figures predate routine immunisation of healthcare workers and are not the current occupational risk where immunisation is universal. And all three are per-exposure figures conditional on the source being infected, so absolute risk in any population depends on prevalence. | |
| + | 36 | ||
| 24 | == References == | 37 | == References == |
| 25 | {{reflist}} | 38 | {{reflist}} |