Causes of Health Care Workers’ Exposure to Antineoplastic Drugs: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: The exposure of health care workers to antineoplastic drugs is associated with several adverse health effects, including reproductive toxicities and mutagenic effects. Recent studies have confirmed that Canadian health care workers are at risk of exposure to these agents. However, the causes leading to occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs are unknown. Objective: To perform an exploratory study to ascertain the immediate and contributing causes of health care workers’ exposure to antineoplastic drugs. Methods: Participants were recruited from 6 acute care facilities in Vancouver, British Columbia. Those agreeing to participate were asked to complete a questionnaire about previous exposure to antineoplastic drugs while at work and to describe the circumstances of each exposure incident. Responses were qualitatively analyzed, and the causes of each incident were classified as immediate (unsafe work acts and/or unsafe working conditions) or contributing (related to the management of the organization, the environment, and/or the physical and mental status of the worker). Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 120 participants, 18 (15.0%) of whom reported having had previous occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs. Qualitative analysis of the responses showed 4 categories of immediate causes (needlestick injury, spill, direct contact, and other unintended exposure) and 3 categories of contributing causes (poor communication, inadequate controls, and lack of training). Some incidents had multiple immediate and/or contributing causes. Conclusions: According to a review of the immediate and contributing causes identified in this study, many of the exposure incidents were deemed preventable. A “hierarchy of controls” should be implemented, including (in the following order) engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The findings of this study can be used to develop job safety analyses, which can in turn be adopted in guidelines for safe handling of hazardous drugs. Future similar studies are suggested to ensure the generalizability of results. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : L’exposition des travailleurs de la santé aux antinéoplasiques est associée à plusieurs effets indésirables sur la santé, notamment de la toxicité pour la reproduction et des effets mutagènes. De récentes études ont montré que les travailleurs canadiens de la santé courent le risqué d’être exposés à ces agents. Cependant, les causes qui mènent à l’exposition professionnelle aux antinéoplasiques sont inconnues. Objectif : Réaliser une étude préliminaire dans le but de découvrir les causes immédiates et secondaires entraînant l’exposition des travailleurs de la santé aux antinéoplasiques. Méthodes : On a recruté des participants auprès de six établissements de soins de courte durée situés à Vancouver en Colombie-Britannique. Ceux qui ont accepté de participer devaient remplir un questionnaire à propos de leurs expositions professionnelles passées aux antinéoplasiques et décrire les circonstances de chacun de ces incidents. Les réponses ont été analysées qualitativement et chaque incident était classé comme de causes : immédiates (gestes dangereux au travail ou conditions de travail dangereuses) ou secondaires (liées à la gestion de l’organisation, de l’environnement ou de l’état physique ou mental du travailleur). Résultats : Cent vingt participants ont rempli un questionnaire. Parmi eux, 18 (15,0 %) ont signalé avoir déjà subi une exposition professionnelle aux antinéoplasiques. Une analyse qualitative des réponses a montré l’existence de quatre catégories de causes immédiates (piqûre accidentelle avec une aiguille, produit renversé, contact direct et autres expositions non intentionnelles) et de trois catégories de causes secondaires (mauvaise communication, mesures de contrôle inadéquates et manque de formation). Certains incidents avaient plusieurs causes immédiates ou secondaires. Conclusions : Selon une analyse des différentes causes relevées dans la présente étude, bon nombre des incidents signalés auraient pu être évités. Une « hiérarchisation des contrôles » doit être mise en place. Elle devrait comprendre (dans cet ordre) : des mesures d’ingénierie, des mesures administratives et l’utilisation d’équipement de protection individuelle. Les conclusions de la présente étude peuvent servir à élaborer des analyses de sécurité au travail, qui peuvent à leur tour être intégrées à des lignes directrices pour la manipulation sécuritaire des médicaments dangereux. Il est conseillé de réaliser d’autres études semblables pour s’assurer que les résultats sont généralisables.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".