Does knowledge of human immunodeficiency virus infection decrease the frequency of occupational exposure to blood?

Implementation of universal precautions is advocated to prevent exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other bloodborne pathogens. Critics of this approach argue that additional benefit can be derived by identifying and labeling patients known to be infected. Knowledge of HIV infection status could result in a reduced exposure rate by two mechanisms: (a) by motivating improved compliance with universal precautions, or (b) by allowing changes in procedure or technique not feasible for all patients. Compliance with universal precautions may reduce the frequency of some types of exposure but has not been associated with a reduction in the frequency of needlestick exposures in several studies. Despite the perception by some health care workers that awareness of HIV status will result in improved safety, no objective data have demonstrated a direct benefit from testing or identifying infected patients. Health care workers who recognize the presence of occupational HIV risk are apt to be motivated to practice universal infection control precautions and experience little additional benefit from testing individual patients. Health care workers in low prevalence areas may experience less incentive to comply routinely with universal precautions and selectively may be motivated when HIV infection is diagnosed in individual patients. However, routine testing in areas of low HIV prevalence is not likely to be cost effective. Until further research clarifies the efficacy and costs of universal precautions or HIV testing, infection control standards should maximize local autonomy in developing rational policies consistent with institutional needs.