Related Experiment Videos
A 1993 update on biohazards affecting clinical engineers and BMETs
1Park Place Medical Center, Mid-Jefferson Hospital, Nederland, TX.
Journal of Clinical Engineering
|May 1, 1994
Summary
Despite employers providing personal protective equipment (PPE), 50% of biomedical equipment technicians (BMETs) and clinical engineers (CEs) did not use it. This contributed to an increased occupational illness rate, highlighting a critical gap in safety practices.
Area of Science:
- Biomedical Engineering
- Occupational Health and Safety
- Clinical Engineering
Background:
- A 1993 survey assessed employer response to biohazard protection needs for BMETs and CEs.
- Previous surveys indicated a need for improved safety measures.
- Understanding changes in occupational exposure perceptions was crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate employer provision and BMET/CE utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE).
- To assess shifts in occupational exposure concerns among BMETs and CEs.
- To determine the ongoing need for targeted educational initiatives.
Main Methods:
- A survey was distributed to Journal of Clinical Engineering subscribers in late 1993.
- Respondents (n=267) were categorized by certification and job title.
- Data analysis focused on PPE use, perceived risks, and illness rates.
Main Results:
- Employers effectively provided PPE, yet 50% of BMETs and CEs opted out of using it.
- The occupational illness and disability rate rose to 21% from 18% in 1989.
- Respondents remained confident in visual hazard identification despite increased risks.
Conclusions:
- A significant disconnect exists between PPE availability and its consistent use by BMETs and CEs.
- Overconfidence in visual hazard assessment poses a serious risk, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes.
- Enhanced training and policy reinforcement are necessary to improve safety compliance and reduce occupational illness.