Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to link. Hand-washing protocols?
Ebola Patient Coming To U.S.
Ebola Patient Coming to U.S.
I would assume section II.E. Down a paragraph then onward :<
Since the ebola outbreak in West Africa started the bbc has been posting this picture in most articles.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29518703
This is what the health workers are wearing in West Africa. Granted, those workers have to be more cautious because they are in the field rather then in a, supposedly, more steril and cleaner environment.
So I'm not sure why hospitals either a) didn't ask if they were confused or b) use google
The CDC has a detailed recommendations for protective clothing. P. 134 figures, p. 125 is description of barrier precautions. P. 134 explains how to disrobe properly.
When I read the CDC statement I didn't perceive him blaming the nurse so much as explaining that somewhere protocols broke down. Where? That is the question and something the CDC has to figure out to prevent the next contamination. (E.g It could be cleaning procedure wasn't followed with medical devices).
I think Mil was referring to hand washing (not sure though). Most people do not follow proper hand washing techniques. My in laws (infectious disease nurse and a surgeon) are highly critical of US hospital cleanliness and protocol techniques, and it varies from hospital to hospital, staff to staff.
Example: One thing that bothered my mother-in-law when she was retracing an outbreak at a hospital would be nurses going to wash hands and
A) not using soap
B) not scrubbing for a min. Of 30 seconds
C) hospitals that used sinks where you had to turn the handle to start the water rather than a foot press. If you don't disinfect the handle after using, then re-wash hands, the whole hand washing process is tainted
D) using alcohol when their hands looked dirty
E) touching items, clothing, or face before washing.
F) any of the above or other
Health personnel are the most at risk and they need to pay attention all the time.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29518703
This is what the health workers are wearing in West Africa. Granted, those workers have to be more cautious because they are in the field rather then in a, supposedly, more steril and cleaner environment.
So I'm not sure why hospitals either a) didn't ask if they were confused or b) use google
The CDC has a detailed recommendations for protective clothing. P. 134 figures, p. 125 is description of barrier precautions. P. 134 explains how to disrobe properly.
When I read the CDC statement I didn't perceive him blaming the nurse so much as explaining that somewhere protocols broke down. Where? That is the question and something the CDC has to figure out to prevent the next contamination. (E.g It could be cleaning procedure wasn't followed with medical devices).
I think Mil was referring to hand washing (not sure though). Most people do not follow proper hand washing techniques. My in laws (infectious disease nurse and a surgeon) are highly critical of US hospital cleanliness and protocol techniques, and it varies from hospital to hospital, staff to staff.
Example: One thing that bothered my mother-in-law when she was retracing an outbreak at a hospital would be nurses going to wash hands and
A) not using soap
B) not scrubbing for a min. Of 30 seconds
C) hospitals that used sinks where you had to turn the handle to start the water rather than a foot press. If you don't disinfect the handle after using, then re-wash hands, the whole hand washing process is tainted
D) using alcohol when their hands looked dirty
E) touching items, clothing, or face before washing.
F) any of the above or other
Health personnel are the most at risk and they need to pay attention all the time.
So can we let Texas secede now?
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Obviously the CDC protocols are not enough.
Obviously the hospital workers aren't taking appropriate measures to ensure their own safety...
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: »
I think it's really amusing that people who hate unions are siding with what is essentially a union defending the nurse for potentially having made an error, just because it fits their narrative.
Meanwhile if a union defends someone for getting hurt on the job, they'll do an about-face and say obviously it's the "personal responsibility" of that worker and the union is just a money-grubbing entity trying to take money from a valuable provider of jobs.
Edit: I realize, being pro-Union, this comes across as me trying to push my own point here, but I really don't want to derail. I'm just saying it's another example of people cherrypicking things to fit their narrative, and yes. It happens on all sides of these arguments. We as Americans learn very well from our talking heads how to play this game.
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Or they aren't stringent enough.
There is obviously a point of exposure somewhere - either the protective gear isn't offering enough protection, or the staff are being exposed to Ebola while removing the protective gear after leaving the patient.
I have to wonder, what are the CDC's protocols for dealing with exposed gear? Are staff being decontaminated before removing their gear, or are they just carefully taking it off and disposing of it? Somehow, I'm guessing the latter.
Ramyrez said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
I think it's really amusing that people who hate unions are siding with what is essentially a union defending the nurse for potentially having made an error, just because it fits their narrative.
Meanwhile if a union defends someone for getting hurt on the job, they'll do an about-face and say obviously it's the "personal responsibility" of that worker and the union is just a money-grubbing entity trying to take money from a valuable provider of jobs.
Edit: I realize, being pro-Union, this comes across as me trying to push my own point here, but I really don't want to derail. I'm just saying it's another example of people cherrypicking things to fit their narrative, and yes. It happens on all sides of these arguments. We as Americans learn very well from our talking heads how to play this game.
I think unions defend more of those that aren't good employees. All my dealings with CSEA they defended and protected mainly sub par workers. We had one where a dump truck driver fell asleep while they were grinding a road and he was spose to be following the grinder. Grinder moved forward and threw road grindings all over truck. They went to fire him for the damage and sleeping on the job as it was not his first offense. Union told him to say that he wasn't sleeping but that he was praying. He got to keep his job.
Fenrir.Atheryn said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Or they aren't stringent enough.
There is obviously a point of exposure somewhere - either the protective gear isn't offering enough protection, or the staff are being exposed to Ebola while removing the protective gear after leaving the patient.
I have to wonder, what are the CDC's protocols for dealing with exposed gear? Are staff being decontaminated before removing their gear, or are they just carefully taking it off and disposing of it? Somehow, I'm guessing the latter.
I love how the potential for "A little from column 'A', a little from column 'B'" just isn't acceptable. We have to have one person/entity to blame to fit the narrative.
Maybe their protocols are good enough, but the way they've been relayed is unclear? Maybe it really is just people being careless and not even realizing it?
Maybe it's not just airborne, but aggressively seeking hosts now and the universe is doomed.
*deep breath*
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEED.
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
I love how the potential for "A little from column 'A', a little from column 'B'" just isn't acceptable. We have to have one person/entity to blame to fit the narrative.
I'm not saying hospitals are following the CDC's guidelines to the letter - maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But keep in mind, typical hospitals aren't versed in dealing with viruses like Ebola, so they'll be looking to the CDC for guidance, since this is essentially the CDC's ballpark.
No but they usually deal with ***like MRSA which is much easier to get. Ebola isn't easily transmitted... (in comparison to most things we're familiar with anyway).
Jetackuu said: »
No but they usually deal with ***like MRSA which is much easier to get. Ebola isn't easily transmitted... (in comparison to most things we're familiar with anyway).
MRSA is all over the place. Unless you're a recluse I bet you walk by people with it a few times a week and don't even realize it. And the more urban you are, the more likely it is. Public transportation in major cities is like a disease orgy.
Yet somehow the vast majority of us get by just fine.
Imagine that.
[+]
[+]
The Bilderbergs have made their move. Make your time, for the apocalypse is nigh.
[+]
Fenrir.Atheryn said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Or they aren't stringent enough.
There is obviously a point of exposure somewhere - either the protective gear isn't offering enough protection, or the staff are being exposed to Ebola while removing the protective gear after leaving the patient.
I have to wonder, what are the CDC's protocols for dealing with exposed gear? Are staff being decontaminated before removing their gear, or are they just carefully taking it off and disposing of it? Somehow, I'm guessing the latter.
Those hospitals didn't have staff catching ebola afterwards.
Hospital staff have to watch and beware of HAI's on a daily basis, as well as, a variety of other contaigious diseases. If they are confused, concerned, or unsure they should call up the CDC and ask a question. Or talk with the CDC people that were on hand.
If medical personnel feel uncomfortable asking for clarification on protocol they should go into another line of work. That sounds harsh, but this is literally about life and death (and everything inbetween).
You can find CDC protocol on their website.
In West Africa because decontamination chambers are not available they are:
However, accidents happen, people are tired/careless/distracted, and health workers still get infected.
[+]
Quote:
US: 2nd hospital worker with Ebola took flight
NEW YORK (AP) Health officials are alerting airline passengers who were on the same flight as a Texas nurse who was diagnosed with Ebola the next day.
The 132 passengers were on Frontier Airlines flight 1143 from Cleveland to Dallas-Fort Worth on Monday.
The hospital worker was involved in the care of a Liberian man who died of Ebola last week at a Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas.
The airplane's crew said the nurse had no symptoms of Ebola during the flight. But the next morning she developed a fever and on Tuesday night tested positive for Ebola.
Infected Ebola patients are not considered contagious until they have symptoms.
But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is asking the passengers to call the health agency so they can be monitored.
NEW YORK (AP) Health officials are alerting airline passengers who were on the same flight as a Texas nurse who was diagnosed with Ebola the next day.
The 132 passengers were on Frontier Airlines flight 1143 from Cleveland to Dallas-Fort Worth on Monday.
The hospital worker was involved in the care of a Liberian man who died of Ebola last week at a Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas.
The airplane's crew said the nurse had no symptoms of Ebola during the flight. But the next morning she developed a fever and on Tuesday night tested positive for Ebola.
Infected Ebola patients are not considered contagious until they have symptoms.
But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is asking the passengers to call the health agency so they can be monitored.
Infected ebola patients are not considered contagious....
why is that and how do they know that? If someone were to have the virus but not show any symptoms, can they still spread it through human fluid (sweat,spit,nose juice etc)?
why is that and how do they know that? If someone were to have the virus but not show any symptoms, can they still spread it through human fluid (sweat,spit,nose juice etc)?
It's because that's how past strains of Ebola have behaved.
It can take up to 21 days for symptoms to appear, and the virus is only contagious once that happens.
It can take up to 21 days for symptoms to appear, and the virus is only contagious once that happens.
you're in new zealand, what do you care?
all you guys would have to do is shut down the airports and watch the world burn...
all you guys would have to do is shut down the airports and watch the world burn...
Until an infectuous penguin arrives on their shores and spreads the doom!
I'm from New Zealand. I live in USA.
[+]
[+]
volkom said: »
Infected ebola patients are not considered contagious....
why is that and how do they know that? If someone were to have the virus but not show any symptoms, can they still spread it through human fluid (sweat,spit,nose juice etc)?
why is that and how do they know that? If someone were to have the virus but not show any symptoms, can they still spread it through human fluid (sweat,spit,nose juice etc)?
End of day...answer is yes. For instance male patients who survive have Ebola present in their semen from something lime 3-6months after the infection regressed.
Now that's a hard load to swallow.
[+]
If what the annoymous nurses are alleging is true, this had nothing to do with following protocols (since nothing was followed on a standard basis, it seems) and everything to do with idoits/incompetence.
US nurses' union accuses hospital of lax safety protocol in Ebola case
Statement from US nurses’ union alleges Liberian Ebola patient was left in the open for hours and that nurses had only flimsy medical equipment
US nurses' union accuses hospital of lax safety protocol in Ebola case
Statement from US nurses’ union alleges Liberian Ebola patient was left in the open for hours and that nurses had only flimsy medical equipment
[+]
Ramyrez said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
I think it's really amusing that people who hate unions are siding with what is essentially a union defending the nurse for potentially having made an error, just because it fits their narrative.
Meanwhile if a union defends someone for getting hurt on the job, they'll do an about-face and say obviously it's the "personal responsibility" of that worker and the union is just a money-grubbing entity trying to take money from a valuable provider of jobs.
Edit: I realize, being pro-Union, this comes across as me trying to push my own point here, but I really don't want to derail. I'm just saying it's another example of people cherrypicking things to fit their narrative, and yes. It happens on all sides of these arguments. We as Americans learn very well from our talking heads how to play this game.
Well the nurse aren't members of the union. It's a private hospital, like the co president mentioned the private hospital has special privileges regarding protocols versus public hospitals.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.