Specializes in Trauma Surgery, Nursing Management.
No testing is done in any facility in any state without your consent.
Kinda falls under that "right to refuse" aspect of healthcare.
I had a nurse in the OR after I had major surgery to stick herself with a sharp and they came back into my room to do a blood draw for HIV testing. My veins were not good after the surgery and after they stuck me 3 times I refused to allow them to stick me any more. I told them that I would allow them to draw in a couple of days but right now, I was in so much pain I didn't need anymore...so they stopped.
So I allowed them to do the blood draw two days later. So yes, you have the right to refuse.
That is such a strange scenario. The protocol for needlestick injuries is to draw the pt's blood immediately after the needlestick, right there in the OR. One reason is to avoid the hassle that you went through, and another is so that results are returned quickly and the person who got stuck won't have to sit on pins and needles (pun intended) with worry.
It sucks that you had to endure multiple sticks, Baby!
I don't think the OP is a nurse or in the medical field at all. I might be wrong but I thought the OP was the mother of a nursing student. If so I think the question was posed out of concern for her child going into the field not out of any type of willful ignorance.
the risks for actual hiv transmission from a needle stick are minute, per my medical surgical textbook. needle sticks are preventable, rare accidents, and i take every precaution to prevent them.
hiv testing during prenatal care is not for 'us', it is a precaution for the baby, to ensure the baby receives the best possible care for their situation.
why aren't all patients given the swab test for hiv upon entrance to a hospital so nurses can take extra precautions?
i realize that the test is not difinitive but it would alert nurses for those that test positive.
i also realize that nurses take precautions with every patient but surely they would be more aware and more cautious with an hiv patient.
patients in labor are tested prior to birth, why not everyone?
treat every patient like they have hepb,hepc, hiv, aids,etc.etc, use standard precautions. won't wash anyone without gloves or pick up a facial tissue withour wearing gloves. it is what it is. even with test they may not show positive until weeks after their exposure-you may have a false sense of security that they are negative....
I don't think the OP is a nurse or in the medical field at all. I might be wrong but I thought the OP was the mother of a nursing student. If so I think the question was posed out of concern for her child going into the field not out of any type of willful ignorance.
Dear Lord, I hope you are correct. I would hate to think that there are nursing professionals out there that still think like this. That would explain a lot.
But again, to the OP, one more time (with feeling)..you treat each and every one of your patients "as if" they had any blood borne contagious disease...HIV, Hep....Ebola for that matter.
OP, if you advocate for testing of all "patients" ... then I can conclude that you also wish for mandatory HIV testing of all nurses, physicians, midlevels, nursing assistants, and all allied health personnel also, right?
Actually ... what you're saying is that the entire population should undergo mandatory screening as a condition of receiving health care services, right?
And why just HIV screening? Are there not life-altering consequences of contracting Hep B, Hep C or various other blood-borne diseases?
the following summary pertains to my state, north carolina, regarding mandatory testing
outside of the criminal justice system:
occupation exposure - health care workers may request testing of source patient and source person shall be tested without consent, unless known to be infected or is endangered by the test.
the specific language of the north carolina administrative code (ncac) is included. this particular subject is discussed in 10a ncac 41a.0202 (4), which begins on page 28.
The only reason we test pregnant women during pregnancy, usually around the 28-week mark in my state, is so that we can treat her during labor (or do a section) and treat the infant with AZT after birth. This reduces the likelihood of vertical transmission. It's not for protection of the healthcare workers caring for them.
Testing everyone is WAY too expensive and is opening a great big can of worms IMO.
We also test women coming in to deliver to find out whether or not it is safe for them to breastfeed their babies. There is a significant chance (between 5 and 20%) of infection through breast milk, so this is an important determination to make.
But again, this is for the welfare of the patients, not the healthcare workers.
We don't HIV test everyone coming in to deliver in my state....only at the 28ish mark. So theoretically someone could have been infected between testing and delivery, and be breastfeeding, and we wouldn't know it anyway. The only STI testing moms get when they come in to deliver (assuming they've gotten prenatal care) is an RPR.
1. it serves for the nurses to know. and yes, while we all take standard precautions, there are standard preacutions;) for very sensitive cases. ???????????????????????????????:confused::confused:
2. there's a great possibility of intruding on care given to patients with sensitive diagnoses.
in the end, we all just want to be safe while doing ourjobs.
right, and this is why we use standard precautions on everyone.
i am very confused--
i do not understand your #1 response...do you use "other" precautions on hiv patients that you do not ordinarily use on all patients? what do you wear, a biohazard suit?
blondy2061h, MSN, RN
1 Article; 4,094 Posts
We've started offering all patients HIV testing when admitted, but certainly not automatically doing it and definitely not without consent.