Occupational Safety in Oncology Nursing: Findings from a National Survey on the Handling of Cytotoxic Substances in Germany
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Oncology nurses in Germany are routinely exposed to cytotoxic drugs that classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic. Continuous or repeated contact, particularly in environments where containment systems and protective measures are inadequate or inconsistent, has been associated with incidence of adverse events, including malignancies, reproductive disorders, and genetic damage. Despite existing regulations in Germany and European directives, evidence suggests variability in protective practices and uneven implementation of guidelines. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of training, protective measures, handling practices, and self-reported health outcomes among oncology nurses in Germany. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted by the European Biosafety Network in collaboration with the Konferenz Onkologischer Kranken- und Kinderpflege. The questionnaire captured demographics, awareness of guidelines, training frequency, availability of protective equipment, handling practices, occurrence of spills and leaks, reporting systems, and self-reported symptoms. Results: We received 1012 responses. The workforce was predominantly female (82.0%) and highly experienced, with 54.7% reporting over a decade of exposure to cytotoxic agents. While 60.7% indicated that refresher training was provided, one quarter reported receiving no such training. Familiarity with safety guidelines was inconsistent, with more than 40% unfamiliar or unsure. Access to basic PPE, such as gloves, was nearly universal (93.0%), but fewer than one-third (32.2%) reported access to closed-system transfer devices (CSTDs). Medical monitoring was absent in nearly two-thirds of institutions. Fluid leaks during administration were reported by 83.4% of respondents, with 10.6% describing them as occasional or frequent. A small but notable proportion (8.2%) reported symptoms associated with occupational exposure. Cross-tab analyses suggested cumulative exposure effects with a higher prevalence of symptoms among nurses with longer professional experience, and reduced leakage in settings using CSTDs. Conclusion: There are substantial gaps between regulatory standards and clinical practice in Germany. While variability in training, inconsistent access to advanced protective technologies, and limited surveillance measures leave oncology nurses vulnerable to unacceptable exposure levels. Greater standardisation, investment in closed-system technologies, and improved monitoring and reporting mechanisms are urgently needed to protect this workforce and align practice with international safety standards.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».