Percutaneous injuries among dental professionals in Washington State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous exposure incidents facilitate transmission of bloodborne pathogens such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV). This study was conducted to identify the circumstances and equipment related to percutaneous injuries among dental professionals. METHODS: We used workers' compensation claims submitted to the Department of Labor and Industries State Fund during a 7-year period (1995 through 2001) in Washington State for this study. We used the statement submitted by the injured worker on the workers' compensation claim form to determine the circumstances surrounding the injury including the type of activity and device involved. RESULTS: Of a total of 4,695 accepted State Fund percutaneous injury claims by health care workers (HCWs), 924 (20%) were submitted by dental professionals. Out of 924 percutaneous injuries reported by dental professionals 894 (97%) were among dental health care workers in non-hospital settings, including dentists (66, 7%), dental hygienists (61, 18%) and dental assistants (667, 75%). The majority of those reporting were females (638, 71%). Most (781, 87%) of the injuries involved syringes, dental instruments (77, 9%), and suture needles (23%). A large proportion (90%) of injuries occurred in offices and clinics of dentists, while remainder occurred in offices of clinics and of doctors of medicine (9%), and a few in specialty outpatient facilities (1%). Of the 894 dental health care workers with percutaneous injuries, there was evidence of HBV in 6 persons, HCV in 30 persons, HIV in 3 persons and both HBV and HVC (n = 2) exposure. CONCLUSION: Out of hospital percutaneous injuries are a substantial risk to dental health professionals in Washington State. Improved work practices and safer devices are needed to address this risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".