Rank: Guest
|
Posted By pauljames213
Hi everyone,
first post so please be gentle! I am a wee bit stumped on this as it is not really my forte but an issue seems to have landed on my lap and having looked at your forum for a wee while i can see that there are a lot of knowledgable people on here. Hopefully someone can even point me in the right direction.
I work for a large organisation (i won't name them) and the senior management are handing down guidance on the current swine flu situation.
One of the policies enacted from on high is the daily cleaning of office desks and keyboards etc with anti-bacterial wipes. So far so good (although it is my understanding there is a debate about how useful that is anyway as a policy).
The problem is that one staff member suffers from very severe skin allergies and this is now allegedly being triggered by the fragrance from the wipes. The staff member has not been in contact with the wipes and indeed has their own keyboard and mouse. However the proximity of others using them is apparently causing a problem.
The staff member is saying that the only wipes that should be used within the offce are 'fragrance free' wipes. However having had a look online and spoken to a couple of our suppliers this only seems to apply to wipes for removing make up etc. I don't think these would be suitable. Presumably cleaning wipes would all contain some sort of cleaning agent and as a result at least a trace of a fragrance? Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance. all help gratefully received.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Luke.
This is nothing against you Paul... and i do not know what sector you work in...
Swine Flu is just another strand of the Flu... the flu has been around for hundreds of years and still kills hundreds of people every year..
Just like normal Flu, Swine flu is only really deadly if you are frail/old, suffer with certain illnesses or very young.. suffer with poor immune system etc etc...
So i ask this question, have your bosses bothered with this policy and standard of wipe downs etc.... with the common strain of influenza?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
Paul,
How about a 'wee' amount of fragrance free sanitiser sprayed onto a lint free cloth and wiped over with that... no fragrance and lasts a wee bit longer than alcohol style wipes... may save a few pennies too!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
Paul
In the document below, which is the current guidance, it says that screens, keyboards etc should be cleaned with the normal cleaning materials, so that may indicate that the new policy of anti-bacterial wipes in your place is based on info which in not backed up by official guidance from the Department of Health/NHS.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/...cyAndGuidance/DH_097137?
I presume the person with skin allergies did not have this problem before. So if the management will not relent and follow DoH/NHS advice, it may well be that the poor person with the skin allergies will have a case later on if their health suffers in the short or long term(that may scare the management into reconsidering); but in the meantime the person may just have to have a little more physical seperation from those using the anti-bac fragranced wipes. Not very helpful, I know, but just trying to be practical.
The management may be trying to help as many as possible by instituting what they feel are improved cleaning regimes(anti-bac wipes) and may not have realised that by doing so, they are causing grief to one person. But now that they know about it, they have a responsibility for that person's health and safety as well as for the majority. The person has active health problems, others have potential illnesses. In that case, should this staff member not become the priority? This is not having a go at you, by the way, just thinking aloud.
Do a risk assessment. The risk to others from the current virus if they do not use anti-bac wipes is no more according to NHS guidance than if they do not use them. On the other hand, the risk to the staff member at this moment in time is real and tangible. Your management, with the best will in the world, is actively causing a problem to an employee which was not present before, by not following government/NHS guidance. Hopefully once they are aware of this they will look at it again.
If you have an Occupational Health dept they may be able to support you; HR might be able to advise.
Hope this helps
Martin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
Luke,
I don't 100% agree with you...
My reason is that the current H1N1 influenza (only we call it swine flu as it would cost too much to change the literature!)
It is unseasonal and makes good business sense to take simple precautions in order to minimise the spread in the workplace. Even short term absence on a large scale will impact business.. unless a very small industry?
To be honest it may also be of benefit in seasonal flu areas also.
I'm not advocating sterile precautions or that this is deadly virus... but the less people suffering.. the less possible absence impact on your business!
And simple low cost initiatives may reduce the chance of costly after effects... just like the iceberg effect!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Paul
Flu, of any variety, is caused by a virus; just how do anti-bacterial wipes cope with that?
Paul
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lee Mac
The last poster has provided a suitable solution for the problem another is perfum free wipes.
Paul, seeing its your first time I thought I would give you the heads up- your email showing provides the profile for your email and in this case is providing information on the organisation you work for. To avoid this go back to your details and hide your email or alternatively use a personal one that you don't mind showing (be aware though spammers can get to the email accounts which are in the public domain).
All the Best
Lee
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
Incidentally Paul, you say that it is your first time on the forum. By leaving your name 'open' at the top of the original post you allow others to see your e-mail address. I have similar employment in the past and recognise it immediately.
If you don't want that, go to the blue/grey bar on the top right, click on update my details, and then click on the circle 1/2 way down which chooses that you do not want others to see your e-mail addresses. Then you remain anonymous unless you choose otherwise.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martinw
Great minds Lee
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
paul,
A virus is theoretically removable via sanitation to a point with correct handling and disposal.
Similar to the 'aseptic' technique that was passed through nursing prior to changing dressings etc (unsure if this is taught or used these days though .. e.g. MRSA etc!)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By pauljames213
Smashing,
I just wanted to say thanks for all the assistance. I can appreciate it's a complex issue and i will look into all the information given.
Thanks
Paul
P.s the e-mail address should now be hidden. Good job i didnt say anything too libellous!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Yes, but my point is, why specify anti-bacterial wipes when decent hygiene could be just as effective?
Paul
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Luke.
A Cambell,
Fair enough point..
In which case, have you bosses looked at a nanotechnology? You can spray keyboards wtc with it and it contains nanosilver, which has antimicrobial properties.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
pauljames...
More than likely people want a 'quick fix' and will look at the product without looking at the application!
In essence.. short cuts are not always cost effective!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
Paul
I bet that nobody has undertaken the COSHH risk assessment either - so I advise that somebody does as the comments you posted would have been picked up their
As somebody has already said: people want quick fixes and in reality all flu should be managed properly [if it can be] not just the high profile ones as days off/lost cost companies millions irrespective of what it costs people although mangers sill want the cheapest [short term] so we are still putting in open plan offices
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Take a look at the following:-
> http://www.epa.gov/iaq/c...fluenza_presentation.pdf
Now ask yourself how using an anti-bacterial wipe in an office environment can play any significant role in preventing what will have to be airborne and inhaled.
Also, keep in mind that airborne exposure to a fragrance can cause reactions in someone already sensitised.
Management overreacting on the basis of inadequate information? I think so!
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
Hi Chris,
Are you advocating that the transmission of a virus by hand/touching droplets is insignificant/negligible?
I totally agree the primary transmission route is via aerosol/droplets, although I also tend to view as potential transmission via oral route also
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that the oral route is of any significance. I ask myself how a virus on the hands will manage to access the lower reaches of the lungs. If it were transferred to the mouth, i.e. oral, how would it get there, bearing in mind that it is unlikely to be airborne and that cillia are continuously moving contaminants upwards?
When considering anti-bacterials (and we would actually need an anti-viral, which is not necessarily the same) I always remind myself why surgeons use aseptic rather than antiseptic methods. Think of Joseph Lister spraying everything with carbolic acid, then ask yourself what a brain surgeon would say if you suggested he should adopt this approach.
Chris
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.