Rank: New forum user 
|
I just had a patient, and I was in a rush to Examine him. For the safety purpose and to protect ourselves and patient from biological health hazards we have to wear PPE such as Gloves, mask and Etc.
The only Gloves that was available at the time of examining the patient was size Medium, and my hand fits large gloves only.
I tried to use that mediums size gloves, but it really took time, and it had the following negative effects. At first took a time to wear it. Second I couldn't examine the patient thoroughly and effectively as I couldn't move my fingers hand properly.
The lesson that I have learned is to use the right PPE at the right time and always check the availability of necessary equipment around yourself.
One question Wearing wrong size PPE would be regarded as near miss?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Near miss for what? Patient incorrectly treated? You were at risk of biological infection/transmission?
Your organisation should set some criteria for deciding what constitutes a 'near miss'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would have thought an incident report was in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
On our site, we do not deal with biological agents from patients, except there is a potential for the first aid team.
In our "HSE "Event" Reporting" system, such an event may be considered as a "Potential Hazard" if it had the potential to affect the treatment being administered.
As there is no universally agreed explicit definition, in our classification is:-
Potential Hazard :
A hazard is identified.
Near Miss :
An “event” has occurred but nobody has been injured and no equipment has been damaged.
Incident:
An event has occurred and there has been damage to equipment or a spill has gone beyond the point at which material can be recovered.
Accident:
An event has occurred and somebody has been hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just wondering how patients were examined before we had gloves.
Where are be biological health hazards with examining a patient?
Was in an invasive examination?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Toe
I entirely agree. According to the RCN ('Tools of the trade' document downloadable from their website) the NHS spend around £57 million annually on examination gloves. Having been an in-patient and been able to watch how gloves were being used I believe that we could knock around £2 million at least from this cost without (indeed at the same time enhancing) standards of infection prevention.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It doesn't matter whether it's called a near miss or not, what matters is that the organisation learns from what has happened. Which may involve reporting it through whatever the reporting procedure is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Not sure if this took place in an examination room or was just a first aid issue but it is about lessons being learnt. Not sure why a questions come up 'wonder how they were examined when we didn't have gloves' It's part of improving safety! It only has to have thepotential to cause harm to be a safety issue.
I think it is worth revisiting procedures and checks on stock to ensure that the areas have the correct stock to cover all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.