基层医疗机构检验人员职业危害流行现况分析

Analysis of the Prevalence of Occupational Hazards of Inspection Personnel in Primary Medical Institutions

目的探讨基层医疗机构检验人员存在的职业危害,提高检验人员的防护意识和健康水平。方法在上海市浦东新区45家基层医疗机构的检验科中随机抽取20家,随机分成两组:10家为干预组,10家为对照组,测定两组检验科的理化危险因素,同时对基层检验人员开展各项实验室指标的测定和卫生防护KAP问卷调查,收集初期基线资料。结果工作环境中有毒有害物检出结果符合GBZ 2.1-2007有害因素职业接触限值第一部分:化学、物理因素。两组人员一般情况比较在年龄、工龄和婚龄方面无显著性差异(P>0.05),在性别、吸烟和受教育年限方面有显著性差异(P<0.05);两组人员体检情况统计发现,除慢性病史外,肝、肾功能、血常规、针刺伤和乙肝抗原阳性无显著性差异(P>0.05),针刺伤发生率:男性60岁以上年龄组最高(50.0%),女性50岁以上年龄组最高(50.0%),主要受伤部位为手指(92.3%),主要职业危害因素有物理、化学因素,主要影响因素有年龄、性别、文化程度以及单位安全管理措施等。结论基层医疗单位检验人员职业危害流行情况比较普遍,需要加以干预。

OBJECTIVE To understand the occupational hazards of inspection personnel in primary level medical institutions, and im- prove the protection consciousness and health level. METHODS 20 primary medical nstitutions were randomly selected from 45 basic medical institutions in Pudong new area, were randomly divided into 2 groups： 10 for the intervention group, 10 for the control group. Tthe physical and chemical risk factors for the 2 groups were determined. Health protection KAP questionnaire and the baseline data were collected at the same time. RESULTS The detection results of the toxic and harmful substances in the work environment were in line with the GBZ 2.1-2007 harmful factors of occupational exposure limits： the first part： chemical and physical factors. The gener- al conditions of the 2 groups were compared in age, seniority, age of marriage had no significant difference（P〉0.05）, there was signifi- cant difference in gender, smoking and number of years of education （P〈0.05）; 2 groups of Personnel Examination Statistics： in addi- tion to chronic disease, liver and renal function, blood routine, needle and hepatitis B antigen was no significant difference（P〉0.05）, the incidence of needlestick injuries： male 60 years old age group was the highest （50.0%）, female 50 years old age group was the highest （50%）, the main injured parts were fingers （92.3%）, the main occupation hazards have physical and chemical factors, the main influence factors were age, gender, the culture degree and unit safety management measures. CONCLUSION The prevalence of occu- pational hazards in the primary unit were more common,which needen to be intervened.