View Full Version : How to get needles tested after needle sticks.
How to get needles tested after needle sticks.
Exactly where would doctors send a needle for testing for
infectious organisms after a needle stick in cases where the
testing could make a difference for doctors and their
patients?...
What is being asked is not about protocol. What is being
asked is about where the testing would be done in cases
where the test results could make a difference to the
doctors and their patients. It is one thing for doctors
explaining that needles are not tested and would not know
where to have a needle tested anyway compared with knowing
where to send a needle for testing for infectious organisms
and explaining that in the light of knowing where it would
not be necessary.
"Don Saklad" <dsaklad@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:y441xk1m2i2.fsf@nestle.csail.mit.edu...
> Exactly where would doctors send a needle for testing for
> infectious
organisms
> after a needle stick in cases where the testing could make
> a difference
for
> doctors and their patients?...
>
> What is being asked is not about protocol. What is being
> asked is about where the testing would be done in cases
> where the test results could make a difference to the
> doctors and their patients. It is one thing for doctors
> explaining that needles are not tested and would not know
> where to have a needle tested anyway compared with knowing
> where to send a needle for testing for infectious
> organisms and explaining that in the light of knowing
> where it would not be necessary.
>
The point is, Don, no clinician would ever send a needle in
to get tested. There's no point to it. It is too inaccurate,
and would have no bearing on ANY clinical treatment that a
doctor would initiate. The results of testing a syringe
would NEVER make any difference to the doctors and their
patients. The "protocols" you refer to are designed to
provide the most accurate possible useful information. Since
no doctor ever sends a needle in, no doctor would know where
to send it. Get it?
In the extemely unlikely theoretical event I wanted to get a
needle tested, I would write an order in the patient's chart
"have needle from this syringe tested for infectious
agents". I am certain that such an order would be followed
shortly by a page from the lab director or pathologist with
a question like "WTF?", followed by a lecture on how
pointless such a test is, and an explanation why it would
cost a fortune to do that testing.
Now, you can do your own homework on this. Call the lab
director for various hospitals in your area. You will no
doubt have to call several, because many, most, maybe all,
will think initially that you are some kind of kook. They
would certainly not do the testing there, but might find for
you the number of commercial forensics lab. Or, look up the
number of the criminal forensics lab in your state. THAT'S
where your needle would be tested, but chances are they'll
hang up on you or otherwise blow you off unless it's a
criminal matter. If they do agree to test it, it will
certainly take months and cost thousands.
HMc
Don Saklad wrote:
> Exactly where would doctors send a needle for testing for
> infectious organisms after a needle stick in cases where
> the testing could make a difference for doctors and their
> patients?...
There is no conceivable place where a needle would be sent.
It does not contain enough blood to obtain a serum specimen
(HIV, hepatitis and other organisms are sampled from serum,
after blood is clotted then centrifuged). Minimum
quantities depending on the lab's equipment ranges from 1-
3cc of serum (which requires anywhere from 2-8cc of whole
blood, a full tube).
>
> What is being asked is not about protocol. What is being
> asked is about where the testing would be done in cases
> where the test results could make a difference to the
> doctors and their patients.
My answer is not based on protocol. Its based on the
limitations of the equipment in common use today. However,
most needlestick protocols and algorhythms are based upon
the same limitations Im basing my answer on.
It is one thing
> for doctors explaining that needles are not tested and
> would not know where to have a needle tested anyway
> compared with knowing where to send a needle for testing
> for infectious organisms and explaining that in the light
> of knowing where it would not be necessary.
Doctors dont know where they would be sent, because THEY ARE
NOT SENT ANYWHERE. Its just not done. If you have a stick
from a positively identified source, you test the source.
That is the industry standard. If you do NOT have an
identifiable source, such as from a sharps box or a needle
left lying around a drug house you simply undergo baseline
testing to determine that you are not ALREADY HIV/Hep
positive and then you make a decision: do I or do I not take
prophylaxis. The standard in unidentifiable contaminated
sticks is to offer prophylaxis. Places that do not offer a
"rapid HIV" assay ALSO provide HIV prophylaxis until the
source's lab results are available. Prophylaxis has been
documented to be most effective at preventing seroconversion
when started within a few HOURS (like TWO) of exposure.
EVEN IF there was some commonly available way to test a
needle with just a smear of blood on it, those results would
not be quickly available, and prophylaxis would be offered
to the patient pending whatever kind of result could be
obtained. Again, at this point in time, this sort of testing
is not available.
Again, if the source is known or suspected to be infected
with a bloodborne pathogen (or the source is unknown) the
routine is to offer prophylactic meds (which can be given
for up to several weeks in the case of an unknown source).
I'm sure the CDC (or CDCP or whatever their latest name is)
can substantiate what I and everyone else have told you.
Dave
Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>Exactly where would doctors send a needle for testing for
>infectious organisms after a needle stick in cases where
>the testing could make a difference for doctors and their
>patients?...
As others have pointed out repeatedly, needles aren't sent
anywhere for testing. The patient the needle came from can
be tested, and the person stuck by the needle can be tested,
but needles themselves are *not* tested. It just isn't done.
On 27 Jun 2004 11:42:13 -0400, Don Saklad
<dsaklad@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>Exactly where would doctors send a needle for testing for
>infectious organisms after a needle stick in cases where
>the testing could make a difference for doctors and their
>patients?...
>
>What is being asked is not about protocol. What is being
>asked is about where the testing would be done in cases
>where the test results could make a difference to the
>doctors and their patients. It is one thing for doctors
>explaining that needles are not tested and would not know
>where to have a needle tested anyway compared with knowing
>where to send a needle for testing for infectious organisms
>and explaining that in the light of knowing where it would
>not be necessary.
Suggest that you just wait and see if the needle gets sick.
In the meantime, take good care of it, feed it well, etc.
See Google on
growing needles
for more.
bob
Thank you for the information Howard and Dave !
Where can needles be tested ?...
Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>Thank you for the information Howard and Dave !
>
>Where can needles be tested ?...
You're starting to look a lot like a troll.....
Don Saklad wrote:
> Thank you for the information Howard and Dave !
>
> Where can needles be tested ?...
Send them to me with a money order for $79.95 and I'll get
right on it for you.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com (http://www.mortimerschnerd.com/)
On 2004-06-27 18:43:15 -0400, Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.csail.mit.edu> said:
> Thank you for the information Howard and Dave !
>
> Where can needles be tested ?...
Looks like somebody's a slow learner...
<plonk
In article <o1kud0tb19jv6schjribrhcnr0qcj98kq5@4ax.com>,
Carey Gregory <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote:
> Don Saklad <dsaklad@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >Thank you for the information Howard and Dave !
> >
> >Where can needles be tested ?...
>
> You're starting to look a lot like a troll.....
>
Apparently, he is True Usenet Kook. After his incessant
nattering about his kidney stone, I did a search on him; he
seems to spend a lot of time at the Boston Public Libraries
without actually reading anything.
--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather
Carey Gregory wrote:
> > Don Saklad > > You're starting to look a lot like a
> > troll.....
Usenet 101
If it looks like a troll, and smells like a troll,
it's a troll.
If it cannot see logical answers to its silly questions,
it's a troll.
Conclusion: It's a troll. [Rocket Science is Something
Rather Different]
--
Andrew
TrollShifting http://www.advicemeant.com/troll/ "Every
Troll Has An Absolute Right to Demonstrate Their Stupidy
In Public"
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
