RSS Feeds
Nosocomial Transmission of Tuberculosis
- Russell N. Olmsted, MPH;
- Charles P. Craig, MD; and
- Janice Treston-Aurand, RN, BSN, MS
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
TO THE EDITOR:
We welcome the contribution of Maloney and colleagues [1] to the ongoing debate over appropriate respiratory protection of health care workers against tuberculosis. Jarvis and others at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [2] also provided a comprehensive review of the difficulties that arise when well-intentioned initiatives by regulatory agencies are not supported by good science or are promulgated with insufficient data. Fortunately, additional data now support the efficacy of devices other than high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) respirators for the protection of health care workers [3]. Moreover, the relative contribution of any particular type of respiratory protection toward minimizing nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis is probably minor compared with early patient identification, triage, and appropriate engineering controls. In both reported outbreak situations, molded surgical masks were useful as an adjunct to improvement in compliance with the CDC's 1990 tuberculosis guidelines on administrative and engineering controls.
Our concern, however, remains with a broader question: Can the approaches typically used by industrial hygienists and occupational health specialists to control and prevent occupational hazards be universally applied to all biological agents that a health care worker might encounter? Specifically, although we support discussion and scientific collaboration among the disciplines of occupational medicine, infection control, and applied epidemiology, premature implementation of broad mandates that are not supported by epidemiologic evidence appears problematic. For tuberculosis in particular, must we accept a previous investigation showing 1-to-2 CFU suspension of Mycobacterium tuberculosis causing infection in guinea pigs [4] as the sole basis for concluding that no permissible exposure level exists for this disease? Do we, in fact, need permissible exposure levels for tuberculosis? Epidemiologic studies in humans, not exclusively focused on unusual anecdotal instances of nosocomial transmission, should also be considered when guidelines or regulations are being developed [5]. We are concerned that some may view the success of these outbreak control measures only in this context and remain convinced that even a single aerosolized tubercle bacillus presents a risk to health care workers. We have observed that use of HEPA respirators at our institution has met considerable logistic obstacles (that is, concerns expressed by many affected health care workers that the respirators compromise their breathing and patient communication during prolonged use). We look forward to the final revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health certification process for respirators as a possible solution to the current HEPA conundrum.
Russell N. Olmsted, MPH
Charles P. Craig, MD
Janice Treston-Aurand, RN, BSN, MS
St. Joseph Mercy Hospital; Ann Arbor, MI 48106
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
- Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians
