论文部分内容阅读
目的:对病理科人员进行职业防护和防护知识知晓情况进行调查,为加强病理科人员的职业防护提供依据。方法:选取浙江省台州市14家医院的病理科人员98人为病理组,同时选取这14家医院临床科室的98名医生为临床组,比较两组职业防护和防护知识知晓情况。结果:洗手、戴手套和戴口罩是病理科人员最常见的防护措施,锐器伤后挤血、清水冲洗和消毒不足占80%,检查HBV、HIV、上报及备案和打疫苗者不到20%。临床人员对定期进行职业健康知识培训、掌握七步洗手法、知晓职业防护的概念、知晓职业病危害因素的概念、知晓职业防护的法律法规和知晓职业损害上报制度等的知晓率明显高于病理科人员(P<0.05),病理科人员对本科室职业危害的因素和病理生物分区的知晓率明显高于临床人员(P<0.05);临床人员和病理科人员在一般防护措施方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),临床人员的特殊防护和锐器伤后的及时上报和处理情况明显好于病理科人员(P<0.05)。结论:病理科人员锐器伤后的处理不规范,其特殊防护、锐器伤后及时上报及处理情况及职业防护知识知晓掌握情况差于临床医生,值得关注。
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the knowledge of occupational protection and protection in pathology department and provide the basis for strengthening the occupational protection of pathology department staff. Methods: A total of 98 pathologists from 14 hospitals in Taizhou, Zhejiang Province were selected as the pathology group. At the same time, 98 doctors from clinical departments of the 14 hospitals were selected as the clinical group. The occupational protection and protection knowledge were compared between the two groups. Results: Washing hands, wearing gloves and wearing masks were the most common protective measures for pathological workers. Blood was squeezed after sharp wounds and 80% of fresh water was washed and disinfected. HBV and HIV were inspected and less than 20 %. The awareness rate of clinicians on regular training of occupational health, mastery of seven steps of washing practices, knowing the concept of occupational protection, knowing the concept of occupational hazards, knowing the laws and regulations on occupational protection and knowing about occupational injury reporting system was significantly higher than that of pathology (P <0.05). The awareness rate of occupational hazards and pathological zonation among pathologists was significantly higher than that of clinical staff (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in the general protective measures between clinicians and pathologists (P> 0.05). The timely reporting and treatment of special protection and sharp wounds of clinical staff were significantly better than that of pathological staff (P <0.05). Conclusion: The pathology staffs are not standardized after sharps injuries, and their special protection, prompt reporting and handling of sharps injuries and mastery of occupational protection knowledge are worse than those of clinicians, which deserves attention.