
OSHA’s request for information (RFI) on a possible “infectious diseases” rule is drawing praise from nurses’ groups and unions, but the American Hospital Association is reserving judgment for now while encouraging its members to share their existing caregiver-protection plans with the agency. (I BET THEY ARE — KEEP THEIR INFECTION RATES A SECRET — SEND THOSE LOBBYISTS OUT THERE!!!)
One union source even called hospital-acquired infections the most “significant” problem in our country, and suggested the new health reform law has created an opportune time for OSHA to address the issue.
The RFI follows OSHA’s announcement last month that it would broaden its initial focus on “airborne infectious diseases.” The expansion drew mixed reactions, with some praising it as an efficient means to address diseases obtained through a variety of exposures, while others cautioned that the broadened focus could potentially lead to a “fractionation of support” (see Inside OSHA, May 4).
The RFI, published in the May 6 Federal Register, provides further explanation for why the agency broadened its focus from airborne exposures, noting that OSHA currently lacks a comprehensive standard that addresses occupational exposure to contact, droplet and airborne transmissible diseases. But the agency also invited stakeholders’ comments on whether OSHA’s deliberations “should focus only on droplet and airborne transmission or if contact transmissible diseases should also be included.”
The RFI also asks stakeholders to comment on existing standards that may apply, including Bloodborne Pathogens, Respiratory Protection, General Personal Protective Equipment and in some cases the general duty clause.
Bill Borwegen, occupational health and safety director of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), praised OSHA’s broadened approach, citing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics to suggest that more than a million infections are acquired in hospitals each year. “Anything we can do to stem this is a step in the right direction,” he said.
“I can’t imagine a more significant problem in our country than hospital-acquired infections,” he said, adding that those who die as result outnumber those killed by “guns and cars combined.” Borwegen called the Bloodborne Pathogens standard “an amazing success” that has reduced infections and curbed needle-sticks by more than half. However unions remain concerned about continued needlestick injuries (see related story).
“Now we need to deal with all these other infections,” Borwegen said – as opposed to conducting rulemaking in “a piecemeal fashion” that could “drag it out for an additional five or 10 or 15 years.”
He added that OSHA’s timing “couldn’t be better,” with healthcare reform being implemented. Borwegen pointed to recent remarks by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Thomas Frieden that hospital infections may trigger up to $33 billion annually in excess medical costs.
Further, Borwegen pointed to California’s ATD standard as a “good model” that was developed using input from both industry and unions. “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel here. A lot of work has already been done,” he said.
Nancy Hughes, director of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health with the American Nurses Association (ANA), told Inside OSHA that it was important for OSHA to take an “overall look” at caregiver infections, noting that some — such as H1N1 — can be airborne, or spread via droplet.
Hughes said the importance of hierarchy of controls is one point ANA is likely to make in its RFI comments. “Because you don’t want to go right to personal protective equipment,” she said. However, she noted that ANA hadn’t yet had the chance to formulate its formal comments for OSHA.
A source with the National Nurses United (NNU) said the organization would look more closely at the RFI and then decide whether to submit comments to OSHA.
During a speech to the NNU staff nurse assembly on May 11, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis touted OSHA’s effort as one that would protect nurses. “We’ve begun work on a standard that will protect nurses against infectious diseases. Right now OSHA only has a standard that covers bloodborne pathogens,” Solis remarked.
An AHA spokesman said the group is in the process of drafting its comments, and that it would neither support nor oppose a possible rulemaking at this point.
Roslyne Schulman, AHA director of policy development, issued the following statement to Inside OSHA: “The AHA encourages hospitals to respond to the RFI, and to share their plans and actions to protect their caregivers against infectious disease. Hospitals follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and recommendations for protecting caregivers and patients from infectious disease, which are enforced by hospital accrediting and certifying bodies such as The Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.”
The AHA had previously praised OSHA’s announcement that it would issue an RFI for its now-expanded airborne infectious diseases regulation. Plus, the previous announcement had prompted union sources to suggest the federal standard addressing airborne exposures should be modeled after California’s, which took effect last August (see Inside OSHA, Jan. 12 and May 4).
According to the agency’s fall 2010 regulatory agenda, OSHA had planned to issue an RFI in March 2010 for its potential airborne infectious diseases standard. But it announced during a regulatory agenda Web chat in April that it would be expanding the standard to encompass all infectious diseases.
Comments are due to OSHA by Aug. 4. — Kristina Sherry
Will be watching and posting these comments. I expect to see the Hospital Lobbyist for the American Hospital Association and thier Attorneys posting negative comments. Who will post for the patients — dead and alive?
To Comment:
Information on possible Infectious Diseases Rule, as posted in the Federal Register on May 6, 2010: see http://www.osha.gov/FedReg_osha_pdf/FED20100506.pdf
Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by August 4, 2010.
You may submit comments and additional materials by any of the following methods:
Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is theFederal eRulemaking Portal.
Fax: If your submissions, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–1648; or
Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service: Three copies of your comments and attachments to:
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA–2010–0003
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–2625
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20210.
All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (OSHA Docket No. OSHA–2010–0003).
Submissions, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above.
Lee Ann Torrans
ltorrans@gmail.com












