Ban On Nhs Staff With Hiv To Be Lifted.

[anotheoldgit]

Is this lifting on the ban on NHS staff with HIV, more to do with protecting their jobs, than protecting their patients?

/// However, for some professionals a positive HIV diagnosis can end careers in areas that require frequent exposure-prone procedures. ///

[woofgang]

link please?

[anotheoldgit]

woofgang

Sorry

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/ban-on-nhs-staff-with-hiv-carrying-out-risky-work-to-be-scrapped-8762338.html

Its amazing when a link is missing, some will ask for one, whereas some admit they do not read them.

[Octavius]

Perceptions of HIV were different in the 1980s, things have moved on and the policies should be updated to reflect current knowledge.

[Sqad]

AOG...the ban was for NHS personnel who were involved in "invasive " procedures and were HIV +.

Since the inception of the ban, there has been no case of HIV contact spread reported, which is not surprising, as the HIV +personnel were banned.....LOL

I hope that LazyGun sees the thread and points out my misconception of the story.

[ummmm]

Do NHS have to have regular screening?

[Sqad]

Ah! I have got it now.........

\\\\\Prof Davies said: ‘We’ve got outdated rules. At the moment we bar totally safe healthcare workers who are on treatment with HIV from performing many surgical treatments, and that includes dentists.’
She said modern anti-retroviral drugs enabled people with HIV to lead normal lives, adding: ‘With effective treatment, they are not infectious.’ The risk to patients was ‘absolutely negligible’.\\\

The infected staff have to be on treatment and have 3 monthly checks.

I hope our Professor Davies is correct.......

[ummmm]

What about the other staff? It's still the case that a large percentage of people with HIV do not know they have it.

[pixie373]

You won't always know who has HIV, Hepatitis, etc. The best precaution is to assume everyone has it.

[andy-hughes]

I would suggest it is less to do with protecting jobs than reducing predjudice.

Remember the doom-laden government propoganda ads in the 80's, where they predicted that by the year 2000 everyone in the country would know someone infected by HIV.

Happily, such predicitions have turned out to be false by a very long way, and medical proceedures have to keep pace with the times.

Let's face it, if medical practicioners didn't move with the times, surgeons would still be operating in frock coats and boasting about their amputation times, while avoiding discussions of the majority of patients lost to shock, blood loss, or infections.

[boxtops]

I heard the interview on the Today programme this morning. The people concerned (who number maybe only 100 across the whole millions NHS workforce) will be monitored monthly, and can only be allowed back into practice if the NHS is satisfied that they fall into a category of the illness where the virus is not readily transmitted, and that they are (and remain) on medication to control their symptoms.

[Sqad]

boxy....I hope so.

I hope that bad news will not be buried.

[boxtops]

I hope so too

[Sqad]

boxy......my other concern is patients who go for an invasive operation who are HIV+, then through a cut in the glove, infect the surgeon.
The surgeon will only be tested if he is one of the 100 who is being monitored.

Doesn't the surgeon himself become a threat?

[woofgang]

Indeed Sqad but if a surgeon had that kind of accident I think that he would be monitored anyway. If the patient was known to have HIV there is (or was when I was working) a protocol about going immediately for assessment and possible treatment. If the status of the patient wasn't known, then there are also assessment and monitoring protocols. I had a wonderful experience once when I took a THR patient of mine on a home assessment in my car. he had a haematoma over the would but no sign of any problem ir infection so rehab was continuing as usual. Except the haematoma burst in my car and soaked the poor guy's trousers, his car seat, my car seat and my uniform. On a friday. At 4pm. And I worked for a group of very small rural community hospitals. I phoned everywhere till i got hold of an Infection control nurse and we decided that HIV was unlikely as the bloke was well over 60 with a wife and 4 kids....not conclusive I know, but the prophylactic treatment then was nasty and carried its own risks. The big risk then was Hep A. The story ended happily for me (no hep, no HIV) and for the patient (return to full function) but I learned more than I wanted to about HIV protocols!!

[Sqad]

woofy......it is not an uncommon experience for a surgeon to "split a glove" and when that happens he has no obligation to inform anybody, he just changes his glove.......

The patient would not have been checked for HIV and neither would the surgeon, unless of course he was one of the 100 HIV +

I just hope that our scientist has got this right.

[Eve]

I was wondering if they are increasing the screening of patients, well, those admitted to wards for whatever reason.

I was admitted when I had suspected chickenpox due to arthritis medication I'm on which effectively compromise my immune system. I remember being woken from a doze in A&E in the early hours where I was in a room on a drip by a doctor who I found quite difficult to understand and was half asleep. They had taken various blood tests and I heard her saying something about a HIV test though and had something of a what the hell panic moment until she said something about testing patients generally. I was being admitted to the Acute Medical ward so maybe on patients being admitted? Can't ever remember it being said when I've been admitted previously.

I had no issue with it being done at all. Is there some kind of new policy in place I wonder.

[woofgang]

Sqad i thought you meant that the glove AND the surgeon got cut. The risk of getting infected through entire skin is minimal

[Sqad]

woofy

\\\\Sqad i thought you meant that the glove AND the surgeon got cut.\\\

I did.

[slaney]

Sqad - it takes more than a glove split for HIV infection to take place, there has to be a breach in the integrity of the skin as well. Surgeons are pretty careful these days and if that happened it would be in their own interest to report it the same way as a needlestick incident as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) can be given.

[Sqad]

slaney....right...thanks.