title: Are universal precautions realistic?
abstract: In concluding whether universal precautions are necessary, it certainly appears that we need something to reduce the significant problem of HIV transmission to health-care providers. As occupational risk goes, it exceeds the occupational risk of a number of other high-risk professions. Unfortunately, we do not know if universal precautions are effective. We also do not know the true compliance rate in use of universal precautions, nor whether they have an impact on transmission even if effectively used. What are the alternatives? They are not great, but some have not been adequately explored or implemented. Re-engineering around needle use in the hospital is clearly the most likely area to produce concrete results, because needlesticks are overwhelmingly the greatest source of infection, but this has not been encouraged to the degree it could be, even with systems already developed. Universal testing does not appear to be a viable alternative, for numerous reasons already discussed. Finally, are universal precautions more important for other pathogens than HIV? I would say yes. Hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and nosocomial infections are more important both as public health issues and as health-care provider prevention issues. If universal precautions are effective in reducing any of these, they are worthwhile.
mesh_terms: D015658:HIV Infections / Q000517:prevention & control*; D015497:HIV-1; D006282:Health Personnel; D006801:Humans; D017053:Infection Control; D017758:Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional / Q000517:prevention & control; D009873:Operating Rooms; D016635:Universal Precautions