Re: 911:: Universal Precautions

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/3/00 6:08:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mwg911man@...

writes:

> Message: Looking for input from others on how their agency deals with

> notifing responding public safety personnel that they are entering or about

> to come in contact with a potentially contagious and/or contaminated person

> or area.

>

We tell the responders in plain English what the potential problem is.

Whether it's HIV, hazmat, or a person with a gun they are given whatever

information we have.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/3/00 8:56:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

bslain@... writes:

> In a recent liability course HIV and other contagious diseases were

> discussed. It was recommended that we should never transmit in anyway

> including radio,cell phones, on-line, or by pager that a person had a

> contagious disease. This was a quick way to get sued.

Although it differs from state to state, I'd really like to see the case law

on this. If a caller tells you of a hazard - let's take the words HIV out of

this - and you don't pass it on to a responder - and a responder is injured -

I suspect this is a quicker way to get sued and IMHO is the worst of the two

options that you have. I'm certainly not questioning what you were told - and

I'm not suggesting that you disregard established policy. We will not store

medical records in our CAD system for privacy reasons - but if a caller tells

you of any situation, whether it be HIV - a more common communicable disease

like Hepatitis - or something as simple as the physical description of an

assailant, I'd be curious as to your exposure in passing along information

that was received by you in good faith. Would the same thinking then prohibit

the ambulance crew from relaying medical information to the hospital

regarding a patient they were transporting? Doctors discussing a case over

the phone? A hospital alpha paging a doctor with patient information? Bear

with me. I'm not trying to be smart. I'm just curious as to what this course

used as a basis and how your state laws work, because we might be missing

something in how to handle this data. Thanks!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/3/00 3:08:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mwg911man@...

writes:

<<

Message: Looking for input from others on how their agency deals with

notifing responding public safety personnel that they are entering or about

to come in contact with a potentially contagious and/or contaminated person

or area.

>>

Just wanted to share something on this... while i was still in training and

was involved in a major incident where the officer kept repeating --- the

subject is HIV positive ---- copy ??? i said HIV positive and is attempting

to bite those around him ......... i refrained from repeating this the first

transmission only becuase i KNEW we weren't supposed to put that out over the

air - but i also felt like he was DEMANDING that i inform the other officers

responding -- which ofcourse was only appropriate, but i had never used the

term " Universal precautions before " and looked to my trainer who could only

shrug at me ....so i then proceeded to blurt out ---- " copy-- the subj is HIV

positive "

Major NO NO ..... soooooo --- the correct terminology is now imbedded into my

little brain !!! forever and ever,amen !!! ...... but just a side note, just

because you say " universal precautions " doesn't necessarily mean your officer

will know what that means...... and i have also heard --- use all CDC

precautions (center for disease control) ...... <just my two cents> thanks

for listening.

Marilyn

[Guest guest]

As usual with a question like this you get a different answer from everyone

you ask.It seems,even if a law states something,it is still up to

interpretation.In our department we have 27 rules (exaggeration)dealing with

the situation.Over the years we have been and not been allowed to give out

the information.I have been unable to get any solid guidance from the uppers

on the subject.On a personal level,if the caller volunteers the information

I give it to the responding units.If they have not left quarters,I will

landline them or state " universal precautions " over the air.I guess I'll

deal with the legalities after the fact.

Rick

Delray Beach FD

>

>In a recent liability course HIV and other contagious diseases were

>discussed. It was recommended that we should never transmit in anyway

>including radio,cell phones, on-line, or by pager that a person had a

>contagious disease

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

what we do is to tell the unit to use universal precautions and they know

that if we use that it means the person is infected or contagious

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/4/00 9:04:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

dgruver@... writes:

> f the field units are using universal precautions on EVERY patient

> like they are supposed to, then how do they get hurt at the dispatcher's

> hands?

> My understanding is, its the LAW not to divulge this type of information,

> and is

> completely unecessary if the responders do their jobs correctly. What

> happens if

> they don't have that info, the dispatcher didn't have it either, and they

> pick up

> something????? Comes down to basics.....treat them all alike!

I don't question that responders have a certain responsibility for their own

safety, but so do communications personnel. By the same logic, should

information regarding a suspect having a gun be withheld from officers

because " they ought to know a robbery call is dangerous? " If we truly treat

them all alike, then an hazard reported to us - regardless of nature - ought

to be passed along regardless. By all means, follow your local SOP, but I'd

really love to see this " LAW " and a summation of cases surrounding it.

[Guest guest]

Universal precautions are not used on every call.It depends on the

situation.In a trauma situation with large amounts of bleeding,units would

wear gloves,sleeves and goggles.However,with a cut finger the situation

changes.

Rick

Delray Beach FD

>How??????? If the field units are using universal precautions on EVERY

>patient

>like they are supposed to, then how do they get hurt at the dispatcher's

>hands?

>My understanding is, its the LAW not to divulge this type of information,

>and is

>completely unecessary if the responders do their jobs correctly

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

BarryFurey@... wrote:

> Although it differs from state to state, I'd really like to see the case law

> on this. If a caller tells you of a hazard - let's take the words HIV out of

> this - and you don't pass it on to a responder - and a responder is injured -

> I suspect this is a quicker way to get sued

How??????? If the field units are using universal precautions on EVERY patient

like they are supposed to, then how do they get hurt at the dispatcher's hands?

My understanding is, its the LAW not to divulge this type of information, and is

completely unecessary if the responders do their jobs correctly. What happens if

they don't have that info, the dispatcher didn't have it either, and they pick

up

something????? Comes down to basics.....treat them all alike!

--

********************************************************

Don Gruver Amateur Radio Call: KG0HN

911 Dispatcher Drum Corps Fan ('76 Sky Ryders)

Newton, Kansas dgruver@...

********************************************************

[Guest guest]

> To: <911consoleegroups>

>

> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:53:38 -0400

> Reply-to: 911consoleegroups

> Subject: 911:: Universal Precautions

> In a recent liability course HIV and other contagious diseases were discussed.

--------<snip>--------------

Yeah, so what's your point?

Nick Wagner

Cortland Co. (NY) Sheriff's Dept

E9-1-1 Center/Sr. Supervisor

mailto:nwagner@...

[Guest guest]

Mike,

My agency passes this information along to our

personnel by a simple code - in our case we use " Code

9 " . It is our agencies policy for patient care

personnel to always use universal precautions on all

runs. Sometimes the caller will and do make a special

effort to emphasize the necessity of universal

precautions and that is when we use it. Ex. Medic 10

Start for xyz123, the reason for responce and so on

and at the end " make your run Code 9 "

I hope this helps.

=====

J. Long

Check out my Web Page. It was last updated June 21, 2000.

http://www.geocities.com/wlong_disp/index.html

http://calendar.yahoo.com/public/wlong_disp

My opinions are that of my own and not that of my agency.

This EMail may not be reproduced with out my written consent.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

NYS Public Health Article 27-f

§ 2782. Confidentiality and disclosure. 1. No

person who

obtains

confidential HIV related information in the course

of providing

any

health or social service or pursuant to a release

of confidential

HIV

related information may disclose or be compelled to

disclose such

infor-

mation, except to the following:

(a) the protected individual or, when the protected

individual

lacks

capacity to consent, a person authorized pursuant

to law to consent

to

health care for the individual;

( any person to whom disclosure is authorized

pursuant to a

release

of confidential HIV related information;

© an agent or employee of a health facility or

health care

provider

if (1) the agent or employee is permitted to access

medical records,

(2)

the health facility or health care provider itself

is authorized

to

obtain the HIV related information, and (3)

the agent or

employee

provides health care to the protected individual, or

maintains or

proc-

esses medical records for billing or reimbursement;

(d) a health care provider or health facility

when knowledge of

the

HIV related information is necessary to provide

appropriate care

or

treatment to the protected individual, a child

of the individual,

a

contact of the protected individual or a person

authorized to consent

to

health care for such a contact;

(e) a health facility or health care provider, in

relation to

the

procurement, processing, distributing or use of a

human body or a

human

body part, including organs, tissues, eyes, bones,

arteries,

blood,

semen, or other body fluids, for use in medical

education,

research,

therapy, or for transplantation to individuals;

(f) health facility staff committees or

accreditation or

oversight

review organizations authorized to access medical

records; provided

that

such committees or organizations may only

disclose confidential

HIV

related information: (1) back to the facility or

provider of a health

or

social service; (2) to carry out the monitoring,

evaluation, or

service

review for which it was obtained; or (3) to a

federal, state or

local

government agency for the purposes of and subject

to the

conditions

provided in subdivision six of this section;

(g) a federal, state, county or local health

officer when such

disclo-

sure is mandated by federal or state law;

(h) an authorized agency in connection with foster

care or adoption

of

a child. Such agency shall be authorized to

redisclose such

information

only pursuant to this article or in accordance with

the provisions

of

subdivision eight of section three hundred

seventy-two and section

three

hundred seventy-three-a of the social services law;

(i) third party reimbursers or their agents to the

extent necessary

to

reimburse health care providers for health

services; provided

that,

where necessary, an otherwise appropriate

authorization for such

disclo-

sure has been secured by the provider;

(j) an insurance institution, for other than the

purpose set forth

in

paragraph (i) of this subdivision, provided the

insurance

institution

secures a dated and written authorization that

indicates that

health

care providers, health facilities, insurance

institutions, and

other

persons are authorized to disclose information about

the protected

indi-

vidual, the nature of the information to be

disclosed, the purposes

for

which the information is to be disclosed and which is

signed by: (1)

the

protected individual; (2) if the protected individual

lacks the

capacity

to consent, such other person authorized pursuant to

law to consent

for

such individual; or (3) if the protected individual

is deceased,

the

beneficiary or claimant for benefits under an

insurance policy, a

health

services plan, or an employee welfare benefit

plan as defined in

29

U.S.C. 1002(1), covering such protected individual;

(k) any person to whom disclosure is ordered by a

court of

competent

jurisdiction pursuant to section twenty-seven

hundred eighty-five

of

this article;

(l) an employee or agent of the division of parole,

in accordance

with

paragraph (a) of subdivision two of section

twenty-seven hundred

eight-

y-six of this article, to the extent the employee or

agent is

authorized

to access records containing such information in

order to carry out

the

division's functions, powers and duties with

respect to the

protected

individual, pursuant to section two hundred

fifty-nine-a of the

execu-

tive law;

(m) an employee or agent of the division of

probation and

correctional

alternatives or any local probation department, in

accordance with

para-

graph (a) of subdivision two of section twenty-seven

hundred

eighty-six

of this article, to the extent the employee or agent

is authorized

to

access records containing such information in

order to carry out

the

division's or department's functions, powers and

duties with respect

to

the protected individual, pursuant to articles

twelve and twelve-A

of

the executive law;

(n) a medical director of a local correctional

facility as defined

in

section forty of the correction law, in accordance

with paragraph (a)

of

subdivision two of section twenty-seven hundred

eighty-six of this

arti-

cle, to the extent the medical director is

authorized to access

records

containing such information in order to carry out his

or her

functions,

powers and duties with respect to the protected

individual; or

(o) an employee or agent of the commission of

correction, in

accord-

ance with paragraph (a) of subdivision two of

section

twenty-seven

hundred eighty-six of this article, to the extent

the employee or

agent

is authorized to access records containing such

information in order

to

carry out the commission's functions, powers and

duties with respect

to

the protected individual, pursuant to article three

of the

correction

law.

(p) a law guardian, appointed to represent a

minor pursuant to

the

social services law or the family court act, with

respect to

confiden-

tial HIV related information relating to the minor

and for the

purpose

of representing the minor. If the minor has the

capacity to consent,

the

law guardian may not redisclose confidential HIV

related

information

without the minor's permission. If the minor lacks

capacity to

consent,

the law guardian may redisclose confidential HIV

related information

for

the sole purpose of representing the minor. This

paragraph shall

not

limit a law guardian's ability to seek relief under

section

twenty-seven

hundred eighty-five of this chapter.

2. A state, county or local health officer may

disclose

confidential

HIV related information when:

(a) disclosure is specifically authorized or

required by federal

or

state law; or

( disclosure is made pursuant to a release

of confidential

HIV

related information; or

© disclosure is requested by a physician

pursuant to

subdivision

four of this section; or

(d) disclosure is authorized by court order

pursuant to the

provisions

of section twenty-seven hundred eighty-five of this

article.

3. No person to whom confidential HIV related

information has

been

disclosed pursuant to this article shall disclose

the information

to

another person except as authorized by this article,

provided,

however,

that the provisions of this subdivision shall not

apply:

(a) to the protected individual; or

( to a natural person who is authorized pursuant

to law to

consent

to health care for the protected individual; or

© to a protected individual's foster parent as

defined in

section

three hundred seventy-one of the social services

law and subject

to

regulations promulgated pursuant to paragraph (a) of

subdivision two

of

section twenty-seven hundred eighty-six of this

article, for the

purpose

of providing care, treatment or supervision of the

protected

individual;

or

(d) a prospective adoptive parent as

specified in section

three

hundred seventy-three-a of the social services law

and subject to

regu-

lations promulgated pursuant to paragraph (a) of

subdivision two

of

section twenty-seven hundred eighty-six of this

article with whom

a

child who is the protected individual has been placed

for adoption; or

(e) to a relative or other person legally

responsible to whom a

child

who is the protected individual is to be placed or

discharged

pursuant

to section ten hundred seventeen or ten hundred

fifty-five of the

family

court act and subject to regulations promulgated

pursuant to

paragraph

(a) of subdivision two of section twenty-seven

hundred eighty-six

of

this article, for the purpose of providing care,

treatment or

super-

vision of the protected individual.

4. (a) A physician may disclose confidential HIV

related

information

under the following conditions:

(1) disclosure is made to a contact, to a public

health officer

for

the purpose of making the disclosure to said contact

and pursuant

to

section twenty-one hundred thirty of this chapter; or

(2) the physician believes disclosure is

medically appropriate

and

there is a significant risk of infection to the

contact; and

(3) the physician has counseled the protected

individual regarding

the

need to notify the contact; and

(4) the physician has informed the protected

individual of his or

her

intent to make such disclosure to a contact, the

physician's

responsi-

bility to report the infected individual's case

pursuant to

section

twenty-one hundred thirty of this chapter and has

given the

protected

individual the opportunity to express a preference as

to whether

disclo-

sure should be made by the physician directly or to

a public

health

officer for the purpose of said disclosure. If the

protected

individual

expresses a preference for disclosure by a public

health officer,

the

physician shall honor such preference.

(5) If a physician chooses to make a notification

pursuant to

this

section, he or she shall report to the municipal

health commissioner

of

district health officer on his or her efforts to

notify the contacts

of

the protected individual. Such report shall be in a

manner and on

forms

prescribed by the commissioner and shall include the

identity of

the

protected individual and any contacts as well

as information as

to

whether the contacts were successfully notified.

(6) Within a reasonable time of receiving a report

that a physician

or

his or her designated agent did not notify or

verify notification

of

contacts provided by the protected individual, the

health

commissioner

or district health officer of the municipality from

which the

report

originates shall take reasonable measures to

notify such contacts

and

otherwise comply with the provisions of this chapter.

( When making such disclosures to the contact,

the physician

or

public health officer shall provide or make

referrals for the

provision

of the appropriate medical advice and counseling for

coping with

the

emotional consequences of learning the

information and for

changing

behavior to prevent transmission or contraction of

HIV infection.

The

physician or public health officer shall not

disclose the identity

of

the protected individual or the identity of any other

contact. A

physi-

cian or public health officer making a

notification pursuant to

this

subdivision shall make such disclosure in person,

except where

circum-

stances reasonably prevent doing so.

© A physician or public health officer shall

have no obligation

to

identify or locate any contact except as provided

pursuant to

title

three of article twenty-one of this chapter.

(d) A physician may, upon the consent of a

parent or

guardian,

disclose confidential HIV related information to a

state, county,

or

local health officer for the purpose of reviewing the

medical history

of

a child to determine the fitness of the child to

attend school.

(e) A physician may disclose confidential HIV

related

information

pertaining to a protected individual to a person

(known to the

physi-

cian) authorized pursuant to law to consent to

health care for

a

protected individual when the physician reasonably

believes that:

(1)

disclosure is medically necessary in order to

provide timely care

and

treatment for the protected individual; and (2) after

appropriate

coun-

seling as to the need for such disclosure, the

protected individual

will

not inform a person authorized by law to

consent to health

care;

provided, however, that the physician shall not make

such disclosure

if,

in the judgment of the physician: (A) the disclosure

would not be in

the

best interest of the protected individual; or ( the

protected

individ-

ual is authorized pursuant to law to consent to such

care and

treatment.

Any decision or action by a physician under this

paragraph, and

the

basis therefor, shall be recorded in the protected

individual's

medical

record.

5. (a) Whenever disclosure of confidential HIV

related information

is

made pursuant to this article, except for

disclosures made pursuant

to

paragraph (a) of subdivision one of this section or

paragraph (a) or

(e)

of subdivision four of this section, such disclosure

shall be

accompa-

nied or followed by a statement in writing which

includes the

following

or substantially similar language: " This information

has been

disclosed

to you from confidential records which are protected

by state law.

State

law prohibits you from making any further disclosure

of this

information

without the specific written consent of the person

to whom it

pertains,

or as otherwise permitted by law. Any unauthorized

further disclosure

in

violation of state law may result in a fine or jail

sentence or both.

A

general authorization for the release of medical or

other information

is

NOT sufficient authorization for further disclosure. "

An oral

disclosure

shall be accompanied or followed by such a notice

within ten days.

( Except for disclosures made pursuant to

paragraph © of

subdivi-

sion one of this section, or to persons reviewing

information or

records

in the ordinary course of ensuring that a health

facility is in

compli-

ance with applicable quality of care standards or

any other

authorized

program evaluation, program monitoring or service

review, or to

govern-

mental agents requiring information necessary for

payments to be made

on

behalf of patients or clients pursuant to contract

or in accordance

to

law, a notation of all such disclosures shall be

placed in the

medical

record of a protected individual, who shall be

informed of such

disclo-

sures upon request; provided, however, that for

disclosures made

to

insurance institutions such a notation need only be

entered at the

time

the disclosure is first made.

6. (a) The provisions of this subdivision shall

apply where a

provider

of a health or social service possesses confidential

HIV related

infor-

mation relating to individuals who are recipients of

the service, and

a

federal, state or local government agency supervises

or monitors

the

provider or administers the program under which the

service is

provided.

( Confidential HIV related information

relating to a recipient

of

such service may be disclosed in accordance with

regulations

promulgated

pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision two of

section

twenty-seven

hundred eighty-six of this article to an authorized

employee or agent

of

such provider or government agency, when reasonably

necessary for

such

supervision, monitoring, administration, or provision

of such

service.

The term " authorized employee or agent " , as used

in this

subdivision

shall only include any employee or agent who would,

in the

ordinary

course of business of the provider or government

agency, have access t

o

records relating to the care of, treatment of, or

provision of a

health

or social service to the protected individual.

7. Nothing in this section shall limit a person's

or agency's

respon-

sibility or authority to report, investigate, or

redisclose,

child

protective and adult protective services information

in accordance

with

title six of article six and titles one and two of

article nine-B of

the

social services law, or to provide or monitor the

provision of child

and

adult protective or preventive services.

8. Confidential HIV related information shall be

recorded in

the

medical record of the protected individual. The

provisions of

this

section shall not prohibit the listing of acquired

immune

deficiency

syndrome, HIV related illness or HIV infection

in a certificate

of

death, autopsy report or related documents prepared

pursuant to

article

forty-one of this chapter or other applicable laws,

ordinances, rules

or

regulations relating to the documentation of cause

of death, nor

shall

this section be construed to modify any laws,

ordinances, rules or

regu-

lations relative to access to death certificates,

autopsy reports

or

such other related documents. Under no circumstances

shall

confidential

HIV related information be disclosable pursuant to

article six of

the

public officers law. Notwithstanding the

foregoing, confidential

HIV

information obtained pursuant to section 390.15 of

the criminal

proce-

dure law or section 347.1 of the family court act by

either court

order

or consent of the protected individual shall not be

recorded in

the

medical record of the protected individual unless he

or she consents

to

the recording of such information in a written

statement containing

the

relevant information specified in subdivision two

of section two

thou-

sand seven hundred eighty-one of this article.

9. Confidential HIV related information shall be

disclosed upon

the

request of the health care worker HIV/HBV advisory

panel,

established

pursuant to article twenty-seven-DD of this chapter,

to the panel or

its

designee only when reasonably necessary for the

evaluation of a

worker

who has voluntarily sought the panel's review.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Well since the last time I answered this question

about 10 months ago the County Counselor's office has

came down with a ruling for this topic....

We are forbidden to disclose this information on

anything but a land line and we are not to tell

officers/firefighters to call for the information. We

can only say to call but not the nature.

We went head to head with the counselor's office but

our efforts were fruitless because this county feels

they have enough going on with the 14 lawsuits they

are currently fighting and not having to deal with any

additional ones.

ee County Emergency Communications Center

(Only my opinion and not the opinion of anyone else

but little ole me)

--- mwg911man@... wrote:

> This is a web form response sent in by

> Mike Gray mwg911man@... on Thursday, August 3,

> 2000 at 16:59:03

>

> Message: Looking for input from others on how their

> agency deals with notifing responding public safety

> personnel that they are entering or about to come in

> contact with a potentially contagious and/or

> contaminated person or area.

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I have to question this statement. It only takes a single drop of blood to

transmit a pathogen. What difference does it make if the blood comes from a

small cut or an amputated arm? Blood is blood, no matter where it comes from.

Universal Precautions SHOULD be taken on ALL calls.

J. Fred Ayars

New Jersey

richard datrio wrote:

> Universal precautions are not used on every call.It depends on the

> situation.In a trauma situation with large amounts of bleeding,units would

> wear gloves,sleeves and goggles.However,with a cut finger the situation

> changes.

>

> Rick

> Delray Beach FD

>

[Guest guest]

I requested info from APCO and here is their response. This is from the

director of EMD training.

****************************************************************************

*

You will find information in the EMD National Standard Curriculum issued by

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The same

information is reproduced in all EMD curriculums (Medical Priority,

Powerphone and APCO) You can find it on the NHTSA website in the EMS

section. www.nhtsa.dot.gov

You may be able to find additional information in the White Act, the

Americans with Disabilities Act or through the local chapter of the ACLU in

your area.

In essence the issue is, if your EMS providers operate under a " Universal

Precautions " protocol, there is no reason to differentiate between patients

since they should (theoretically) all be treated with the same level of

precautions.

Patty Maher, MPA, EMT-P

EMD Program Manager

APCO Institute

2040 South Ridgewood Avenue

South Daytona, Florida 32119

USA Toll Free:

International:

Fax:

************************************

Doug in Leavenworth

[Guest guest]

--SNIP--

....police officers who, under your theory, would have to wear gloves 8, 10 or 12

hours a day.

--SNIP--

This is simply nonsense. Police officers (and all other responders)simply must

use body substance isolation ( aka " universal precautions " ) where there is a

reasonable expectation of contact with infectious body substances. While

driving in the patrol car? No. While taking a report on auto theft? Obviously

not.

To do any less while waiting for a dispatcher to tell you there is a threat is a

good way to get DEAD, unless you believe that your dispatcher will know about

every caller that has any disease. While our dispatch staff is good, I don't

think they're THAT good.

Bottom line, not only is broadcasting this sort of legally risky, it is

absolutely NOT needed to protect the safety of any responder.

Good night to all-

-

C. A. Voigt

pvoigt@...

EMD / Telecommunicator

BCSAR Comm Unit Leader

Burke County Emergency Services

EOC:

Wireless:

Home:

Fax:

Text messaging:

http://message.alltel.com Pin: 7045790659

[Guest guest]

--SNIP--

Universal precautions are not used on every call.

--SNIP--

Then you do, indeed, have both a responder safety problem AND a legal problem,

but they have nothing to do with broadcasting the info.

OSHA requires the use of equipment sufficient to reasonably insure isolation

from infectious body substances be used whenever there is a reasonable

expectation that exposure to such substances MAY occur. Thus, use of gloves

during pt care becomes a minimum standard, as it is reasonable to expect that

exposure to the hands may occur on any call.

Also - the White act REQUIRES infectious patients to inform healthcare

providers of their status - it does not, however, allow such info to be

broadcast.

Our policy is, if a caller gives a dispatcher information of that nature, to ask

the caller to " please tell the crew that when they arrive. " If the pt

volunteered the info to the dispatcher, they will tell the crew.

-

C. A. Voigt

pvoigt@...

EMD / Telecommunicator

BCSAR Comm Unit Leader

Burke County Emergency Services

EOC:

Wireless:

Home:

Fax:

Text messaging:

http://message.alltel.com Pin: 7045790659

[Guest guest]

<< I would be very hesitate to put this type of info. out on the air.

With ADA, to dispatch and say that someone is potential HIV or

hepatitis would be inappropriate. >>

The Lt. mentioned ADA.. This is another one of those Government things that

you hear about in classes, but are never given copies of the book/chapter

where it comes from. I was told in a class that it's against ADA rules to

say " the person is a diabetic " or " the person is an epileptic " because saying

it this way labels the person... it's ok to say the " person has diabetes " or

the " person has epilepsy " . I have yet to find the statement in the ADA books

I've looked at.

I've been searching in the FCC website for the language law (the copy we have

in dispatch is dated 1978!) without any luck. If anyone can find where it

says this (or where it doesn't say this) would you be kind enough to post

page/chapter??

Kathy

[Guest guest]

> To: <911consoleegroups>

> Organization: Voigt Industrial Electronics, LLC

>

> Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 01:47:55 -0400

> Reply-to: 911consoleegroups

> Subject: Re: 911:: Universal Precautions

> --SNIP--

> Universal precautions are not used on every call.

> --SNIP--

>

> Then you do, indeed, have both a responder safety problem AND a legal problem,

> but they have nothing to do with broadcasting the info.

--------<snip>-----------

You have just delcared to the world that you discriminate from

patient to patient. Practice explaining that to your lawyer.

\

Nick Wagner

Cortland Co. (NY) Sheriff's Dept

E9-1-1 Center/Sr. Supervisor

mailto:nwagner@...

[Guest guest]

J,True that precautions " should " be taken on all calls.However,you and I

know that is not the case. The question of when to use precautions would be

easier to answer if information was forthcoming about a patients'

history.It's past time when privacy should outweigh a caregivers' life.

Rick

Delray Beach FD

>

>I have to question this statement. It only takes a single drop of blood to

>transmit a pathogen.

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Reference privacy and medical conditions:

During my short career as a Correctional Officer in North Carolina's

Central Prison (the state maximum security prison in Raleigh) whether or

not an inmate had HIV or AIDs was a private matter (for the inmate) and

the guards weren't supposed to know.

EJ

Fayetteville Communications

[Guest guest]

>what we do is to tell the unit to use universal precautions and they know

that if we use that it means the person is infected or contagious

If you do not do that with EVERY call... you are still opening yourself

and your department for big trouble...

Universal Precautions are sometimes considered a nuisance.

They are not.

They are good common sense.. for both the responders and the

patients/victims....

Responders must learn to use them.. the consequences demand it.

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

<<I don't question that responders have a certain responsibility for their

own

safety, but so do communications personnel. By the same logic, should

information regarding a suspect having a gun be withheld from officers

because " they ought to know a robbery call is dangerous? " >>

Nope...uh uh...aint buyin' that. Dispatchers take enough blame as it is

without trying to make them feel guilty because a medic contracted something

because of not using universal precautions. The law is the law. Part of

the reason the law is in place is because of stigma attached to having

HIV/AIDS and the prejudice that goes along with it. I've never heard of

anyone being stigmatized on account of carrying a gun. Never heard of

anyone not being able to get a job anywhere because of carrying a gun. I

understand your safety concerns...I really do...but the only way to show you

are really concerned about your own safety is to use the universal

precautions set out for you...use them ALL the time...and then no one should

have to worry about carrying the blame for anything.

Greene Central Communications, OH

My opinion only and not necessarily that of my co-workers or department.

[Guest guest]

Just a quick question. When you give a medical update to the med unit enroute

to a patient we give a brief medical hx... hx of CHF hx cancer so on. How

come we can't give hx of HIV? How come everything but HIV can been given?

That could be information that is also needed?

Someone may have answered this question earlier but, my email was backed up

and I ended us deleting a lot of it.

Amy Reidling

Communication Officer/NREMT

Dawson County E911

Dawsonville, Ga

[Guest guest]

>The question of when to use precautions would be

easier to answer if information was forthcoming about a patients'

history.It's past time when privacy should outweigh a caregivers' life.

I certainly would not disagree with your statement...

However, we have to deal with the way things are... and right now

Universal Precautions on every call is the only way to go...

(I know it's not done in many, if not most agencies, but it should be)

If Universal Precautions are used on every call, then we have some

measure of safety... and the patient/victim still has their privacy...

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

Amy said:

How

come we can't give hx of HIV? How come everything but HIV can been given?

The answer is: HIV is NOT the only protected information. Basically, we

cannot BROADCAST any information relating to ANY infectious disease; the only

exception being AIRBORNE infectious disease (read tuberculosis), because routine

BSI (Universal) precautions do not protect against airborne pathogens.

Also - HIV/AIDS (or any other infectious disease) status CAN be given if the

is the reason for the pt calling. For instance, if the caller states " I'm

feeling ill because of my hepatitis (or aids or whatever) and would like an

ambulance " then that info CAN be broadcast to the responders. If they said " I

cut my finger and would like an ambulance, and by the way I'm HIV (or Hep B,

etc.) positive " then the HIV status CANNOT be broadcast; the proper (at least

for our center) response would be " I understand, would you please give that info

directly to the crew of the ambulance I'm sending you? "

As a side note to all - do you have the yearly (OSHA required) infection

control classes? If not, you should. If you do, and your course doesn't cover

this type of information, look for another. In our county EVERYBODY - EMT's,

Paramedics, Firemen, First Responders, Policepeople, Sheriff's deputies, Highway

patrolpeople, - EVERYBODY has this training every year, and all these legal

aspects are covered.

Thus endeth my soapbox speech..... |:-)

Good day -

-

C. A. Voigt

pvoigt@...

EMD / Telecommunicator

BCSAR Comm Unit Leader

Burke County Emergency Services

EOC:

Wireless:

Home:

Fax:

Text messaging:

http://message.alltel.com Pin: 7045790659