OBJECTIVE: To survey the attitudes of a group of Australasian anaesthetists to the risks of bloodborne infections, and their understanding of Universal Precautions. DESIGN: A questionnaire survey. SETTING: A conference on health risks to anaesthetists in August 1995. PARTICIPANTS: 162 Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists. RESULTS: Two-thirds of anaesthetists favoured preoperative HIV and hepatitis B and C testing; they rarely took "risk" histories from patients preoperatively. Only 37% always wore gloves while administering anaesthetics, and 67% reported they resheathed needles. Thirty-nine per cent had had needlestick injuries in the preceding 12 months; 43% did not always report them. The perceived needlestick accident rate was 1 in 1300 anaesthetics. Most (90%) were immunised against hepatitis B, but 20% of these had never had their serological response checked. Twelve per cent of anaesthetists had had occupational exposure to HIV. A high proportion of the anaesthetists understood the principles of Universal Precautions, but only half of them believed these to be practical. CONCLUSIONS: The current situation of Australasian anaesthetists not complying with Universal Precautions and not taking a risk history for bloodborne pathogens may carry the greatest risk of accidental infection.
OBJECTIVE: To survey the attitudes of a group of Australasian anaesthetists to the risks of bloodborne infections, and their understanding of Universal Precautions. DESIGN: A questionnaire survey. SETTING: A conference on health risks to anaesthetists in August 1995. PARTICIPANTS: 162 Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists. RESULTS: Two-thirds of anaesthetists favoured preoperative HIV and hepatitis B and C testing; they rarely took "risk" histories from patients preoperatively. Only 37% always wore gloves while administering anaesthetics, and 67% reported they resheathed needles. Thirty-nine per cent had had needlestick injuries in the preceding 12 months; 43% did not always report them. The perceived needlestick accident rate was 1 in 1300 anaesthetics. Most (90%) were immunised against hepatitis B, but 20% of these had never had their serological response checked. Twelve per cent of anaesthetists had had occupational exposure to HIV. A high proportion of the anaesthetists understood the principles of Universal Precautions, but only half of them believed these to be practical. CONCLUSIONS: The current situation of Australasian anaesthetists not complying with Universal Precautions and not taking a risk history for bloodborne pathogens may carry the greatest risk of accidental infection.