1088
BIOSAFETY IN SPEECH, LANGUAGE AND HEARING SCIENCES
Biossegurança em fonoaudiologia
Marcela do Amaral de Albuquerque (1), Valéria da Rocha Silveira Bernardo (2),
Luciana de Ornellas Silva (3), Leila Coelho Nagib (4), Silvana Frota (5)
ABSTRACT
Purpose: research, among a group of speech pathologists, the degree of knowledge and use of
standards of biosafety in clinical routine. Method: a survey was conducted through a questionnaire
answered by one hundred professionals from different areas (Clinical Audiology, Occupational
Audiology, Voice, Neonatology, Language, Orofacial Motricity and more than one performing area).
Each item, responded in a positive way, corresponding to 1 or 2 points and the maximum score
(100%) corresponding to 80 points. The responses were analyzed and the found scores were
standardized, or converted into percentage index indicating its performance. The percentage value
of each questionnaire could vary from 0 to 100%, and the greater the percentage obtained, the more
knowledge and applicability of standards of biosafety professionals in the clinical routine. Tracks
were taken (0-25%), (26-50%), (51-75%) and (76-100%) to distinguish the level of knowledge and
application of precautionary measures by the participants. Results: of one hundred speech therapists
assessed by the questionnaires (100%), 1% obtained the percentage in the range (0 to 25%), 45% (26
to 50%), between 50% (51 to 75%) and 4% (76 to 100%). Conclusion: the most of the professionals
who participated knows and applies biosafety measures.
KEYWORDS: Exposure to Biological Agents; Occupational Risks; Speech, Language and Hearing
Sciences
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Council of Speech, Language and
Hearing Sciences published, in 2007, the “Biosafety
Manual on Measures Control of Infection for speech
(1)
Speech Therapist; Professional training at the Hospital Universitário Pedro Ernesto, Rio de Janeiro, RJ; Specialization
in Clinical Occupational and Audiology.
(2)
Speech Therapist;Partner owns the Clinic Occupational
Audiomed, Rio de Janeiro, RJ; Specialization in Clinical
Occupational and Audiology.
(3)
Speech therapist of CLM management in occupational
health, Rio de Janeiro, RJ; Specialization in Clinical Occupational and Audiology.
(4)
Speech Therapist; Professor of the course of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences Faculdade de Medicina da
UFRJ, Master of the Graduate program in Mental Health at
the Institute of Psychiatry of UFRJ.
(5)
Speech Therapist; Assistant Professor of the course of
Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences of the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ;
Doctorate in Human communication disorders from the
Federal University of São Paulo.
Conflict of interest: non-existent
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097
therapists”. The manual defines Biosecurity, as
the set of actions geared towards the prevention,
minimization or elimination of health risks of
professionals, its customers and the environment 1.
As well as in one of the studies of literature, the
document also addresses items such as immunization of health professionals hand hygiene, the
use of individual protection equipment, surfaces
processing, processing of articles, among others 1,2.
In Brazil, biosecurity is regulated by Law Nº
11.105, of March 25, 2005, which provides for the
National Biosafety Policy. This revoked the Law
Nº 8.974/95, that Instituted the National Biosafety
technical Commission (CTNBio), responsible for
compliance with the prevailing Law 3 .
The environmental risk prevention program –
PPRA is required by law and should contain identification of biological hazards more likely, depending
on the geographic location and characteristics of
health and service sectors. Biosecurity measures
are used in accordance with the risks presented 4.
Two studies highlight that the actions of biosafety
and bioethics isn´t just in prevention and control
Biosafety in Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences
standards accompanied of alterity. They require
individual educational training that facilitates interpersonal relationship at work and can develop
concrete actions and accountable, providing greater
confidence and safety in various health sectors
5.6
. It has also been found in the literature a study
that examines the limitations of the concept of
biosecurity, which comes from the premise that
public health risks can be identified, assessed
and controlled by science. However, the concept
of post-normal Science is based on the concepts
of uncertainty and complexity of risks discarded
by normal science and features as a resolution of
this problem the participation and mutual learning
of various social groups involved in environmental
issues and health 7.
Professionals are exposed to various occupational hazards, such as, the physical, chemical,
biological hazards, ergonomic and accidents.
Some studies are especially focused on biological
risks. Occupational exposure to biological materials
enables the transmission of pathogens that can
cause illnesses such as HIV, hepatitis, diphtheria,
tetanus, tuberculosis, among others, representing a
risk for workers 8-11. Epidemiologically those risks are
not established in speech therapy yet. It is known,
however, that this can occur to the professional and
vice versa, since, at the time of speech therapy,
there is exposure to microorganisms present in
saliva, blood and oral, nasal and hearing mucous
membrane 12. The analysis made in the literature
demonstrates that the most common infections in
the oral manipulation are: bacterial infections, viral
infections and fungal infections 12.13 .
Audiological field in practice, contamination
can be through of equipment used in conducting
audiological tests that in contact with the skin of
the individual, can be contaminated with microbial
flora present on auditory Pavilion and/or external
acoustic meatus (headphones, electrodes, irrigation
cannula, speculums or olives). Earwax can also be
regarded as infectious substance 14 .
The routes of transmission of diseases are:
by direct contact with infectious lesions (blood
or saliva contaminated) that is transfer between
a possible host and an infected individual-and
by indirect contact (transfer of microorganisms
present in contaminated objects, by contaminated
1089
secretions spatter and transfer of micro-organisms for
aerosols) 15 .
The result of a study shows that professionals
do not remove (rings, wedding bands, watches and
bracelets), don’t wet their hands before applying
the liquid soap, do not perform the correct friction
of nails, interdigital, palms and wrists and don’t
rinse in the direction of the hands for the elbows,
unfortunately the habit of hand washing has a low
adhesion by health professionals16. The biggest
challenge is in neonatology units, in which the
infectious processes are mainly responsible for the
high morbidity and mortality 17.18. Yet there are few
studies on the impact of coats, but some researches
reveal the risk of infection through these, when used
inside and outside of clinical environments 19.20. In
addition to the personal hygiene care of the professionals, it is important to prioritize the environment
clean, since the transmission of hospital-acquired
infections, or environmental crusade is facilitated by
the survival of microorganisms in dry surfaces that
can be favored by the presence of biological fluids.
Cleaning tange sanitary and hygienic techniques
and results in the removal of dirt, organic matter and
greasiness, reducing microbial load 21-24 .
Most of the professionals interviewed, answered
the questionnaire, which acquired knowledge about
biosecurity at graduation.
Considering that there are few studies about
specific precautionary measures for performance,
this study aims at analyzing a group of speech
therapists, through a questionnaire, the degree of
knowledge on the recommendations and procedures of Biosafety such as individual immunization,
hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment,
proper management of waste and processing of
articles and surface in clinical routine.
METHODS
On hundred speech therapists were invited
to participate in the survey. They were chosen at
random, these professionals work in the areas of
Audiology, Occupational Audiology Clinic, voice,
Neonatology, language, motor skills and Orofacial
which act in more than one area. They have filled
a questionnaire of biosafety composed of items
and subitems, of forty-three issues, with a choice of
answers “Yes” or “no” (Figure 1).
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097
1090
Albuquerque MA, Bernardo VRS, Silva LO, Nagib LC, Frota S
Search for completion of the specialization course in Clinical and occupational Audiology – CEFAC
Name (optional): _______________________________________________________________ Sex: ( ) F ( ) M
Area of expertise: ( ) Orofacial Motricity ( ) Voice ( ) Clinic Audiology
( ) Audiology Occupational ( ) Language ( ) Public health
Location of activity: ( ) Private clinic ( ) public hospital ( ) private hospital ( ) Home care ( ) Health center
( ) Other
Training time: ( ) less than 1 year ( ) 1 to 5 years ( ) 6 to 10 years ( ) more than 10 years
Questionnaire on Biosafety
1- Remove (rings,wedding bands,watches and bracelets) before the attendance?
( ) Yes ( ) No
2- Hold the hair for the attendance?
( ) Yes ( ) No
3 – Personal Hygiene:
3.1 – Long nails ( ) Yes ( ) No
3.2 – Press-on nails ( ) Yes ( ) No
3.3 – Use of nail varnish ( ) Yes ( ) No
Using nail varnish:
3.4 – Light color ( ) Yes ( )No
3.5 – Dark color ( ) Yes ( ) No
3.6 – Strip cuticles? ( ) Yes ( ) No
4- Baths immediately after the attendances?
( ) Yes ( ) No
5 – General health:
5.1 – Meets with injuries on the skin? ( ) Yes ( ) No
5.2 – Meets with cold influenza? ( ) Yes ( ) No
5.3 – If Yes: wear a mask? ( ) Yes ( ) No
6 – How do you dress for the attendance:
6.1-Short dresses ( ) Yes ( ) no
Long dresses ( ) Yes ( ) no
Bermuda ( ) Yes ( ) No
Low-cut clothing ( ) Yes ( ) no
6.2- Closed-toe shoes ( ) Yes ( ) no
6.3- Trousers ( ) Yes ( ) no
7- Wash your hands:
7.1 – Before attendance? ( ) Yes ( ) No
7.2 – During attendance? ( ) Yes ( ) No
7.3 – After attendance? ( ) Yes ( ) No
7.4 – In front of the patient? ( ) Yes ( ) No
8 – Wash your forearms:
8.1 – Before the attendance? ( ) Yes ( ) No
8.2 – During attendance? ( ) Yes ( ) No
8.3 – After the attendance? ( ) Yes ( ) No
8.4 – In front of the patient? ( ) Yes ( ) No
9 – Use cosmetics (makeup, perfume...) before the attendance?
( ) Yes ( ) No
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097
Biosafety in Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences
1091
10 – Take vaccines preventable diseases periodically?
( ) Yes ( ) No
11 – Use daily:
11.1 – Apron/lab coat ( ) Yes ( ) No
11.2 – Uses other PPEs:
Bonnet ( ) Yes ( ) No
Mask ( ) Yes ( ) No
Gloves ( ) Yes ( ) No
Goggles ( ) Yes ( ) No
Trainers ( ) Yes ( ) No
Lab coat:
11.3 – Wear out of the workplace? ( ) Yes ( ) No
11.4 – After use, put into plastic packaging? ( ) Yes ( ) No
11.5 – After removal is transported inside out in plastic packaging?
( ) Yes ( ) No
11.6 – Wash separately from other clothes? ( ) Yes ( ) No
12 – Check daily hygiene:
12.1 – Room ( ) Yes ( ) No
12.2 – Equipment ( ) Yes ( ) No
13 – Clean equipment for every patient?
( ) Yes ( ) No
14 – Keep the natural ventilation of the environment while not in attendance?
( ) Yes ( ) No
15 – Is there a sink in the work-place?
( ) Yes ( ) No
16 – You use for desinfection:
Container with 1% sodium hypochlorite for dip of 30 minutes followed by rinsing and alcohol 70% applied on friction,
leaving dry and repeating the operation for three times (approximately 30 seconds of contact across the surface of
the equipment)?
( ) Yes ( ) No
17 – Is there exclusive room for cleaning/disinfection/sterilization of equipment?
( ) Yes ( ) No
18 – Use scented disinfectant in the environment?
( ) Yes ( ) No
19 – Your furniture are:
Wood ( ) Yes ( ) No
Fabric ( ) Yes ( ) No
20 – Use in work-place:
Liquid soaps ( ) Yes ( ) No
Paper towels ( ) Yes ( ) No
21 – Apply the anamnesis in patients, in order to know their previous and current history, as well as to be able to
adopt available measures in case of infections during attendance? ( ) Yes ( ) No
22 – Did you have Biosafety lessons in your graduation?
( ) Yes ( ) No
Suggestions: _______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1 – Questionnaire on Biosafety
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097
1092
Albuquerque MA, Bernardo VRS, Silva LO, Nagib LC, Frota S
The questionnaire was distributed during the
period from May to July 2010, via email or in person,
without inducing answers. All were told to respond
with sincerity and without prior consultation to the
relevant material.
Questions were raised about the removal of
(rings, wedding bands, watches and bracelets) the
attendance hair tied, overall health, clothing, use of
cosmetics, vaccination, care of personal hygiene,
use of PPEs, cleaning of the hands and forearms,
cleaning of rooms and equipment, natural ventilation, disinfection procedures, use of deodorizers
and scented disinfectants, furniture, environment,
application of anamnesis and lessons biosecurity at
graduation.
It was adopted in the questionnaire a point
system; that is hygiene-related issues (personnel,
equipment and environment), health, clothing, application of anamnesis in all patients and if biosecurity
in the graduation class had had the value of 2 points;
the other issues, 1 point, being the maximum score
(100%) corresponding to 80 points. The responses
were analyzed and the scores found, standardized,
that is transformed into percentage scores indicating
their performance. The value of the percentage of
each questionnaire could vary from 0 to 100%, and
the higher the percentage, the larger the obtained
knowledge and applicability of biosecurity standards
by professional in their clinical routine. The tracks
were employed (0-25%), (26-50%), (51-75%) and
(76-100%) to distinguish the level of knowledge
and adoption of precautionary measures of each
participant. In the end, it was elaborated a table,
considering as a universe of study the set of 100
professionals distributed according to the area of
expertise. Based on the results obtained in each
questionnaire, the number of professionals in each
track can be determined, as well as its percentage
in relation to the Group of its area of operation.
The bibliographic material used in this study was
published in the period between 2006 and 2010 and
purchased in the databases LILACS (Latin American
and Caribbean Literature on health sciences),
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097
SCIELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online) and
MEDLINE (Medical Literature Online). The survey
was in Portuguese and English languages, with the
keywords: “biosecurity”; “biological fluids”; “occupational hazard”.
The study had the approval of the Research
Ethics Committee of the Centre of expertise in
speech therapy Clinic, under number 061/10,
regarded as without risk and in need of an informed
consent.
The data were grouped, sorted, transferred to a
database (Excel) and then processed. A descriptive
statistical analysis was performed for the characterization of the subject. In the first step, the score of
each interviewee and the percentage was obtained
by applying the rule of three using the gross score
questionnaire and the score obtained by the
respondent. Then applied again the same rule
using the total number of respondents per practice
area and the number of professionals according
to the range of knowledge and implementation of
precautionary measures. Through these findings
might be noted the percentage of professionals by
area of expertise who know and use the biosecurity
measures in their clinical routine.
RESULTS
For the realization of the survey were approached
100 speech therapists of different States, acting in
the areas of Audiology, Occupational Audiology
Clinic, voice, Neonatology, language, Orofacial
Motricity and with more than one area of expertise.
Figure 2 presents the number of positive
responses, negative and blank each issue
addressed in the questionnaire of biosecurity.
The results that best describe the knowledge
of this population about biosecurity standards are
described below.
In the area of Audiology Clinic, of twenty-eight
professionals who participated, 1
Biosafety in Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences
1093
100
90
YES
number of participants
80
70
NO
60
50
BLANK
40
30
20
10
0
Questions
Figure 2 – Statement of questionnaire replies of biosecurity
(3.6%) had the percentage of questionnaire in
the range (0 to 25%); 17 (60.7%), in the range of 26
to 50 (%) and 10 (35.7%) between (51 to 75%). With
the six Occupational Audiology professionals, the
result was divided into 3 (50%) in the range of (26 to
50%) and the other 3 (50%) between (51 to 75%). Of
3 respondents who work with voice, 2 (66.7%) were
between 26 and 50 (%) and 1 (33.3%), between (76
to 100%). In neonatology, five respondents, 1 (20%)
was among the 26 (50%), 3 (60%) between (51 to
75%) and 1 (20%) between (76 to 100%). Of the
total of five respondents in the area of language, 3
(60%) were between 26 and 50 (%) and 2 (40%),
in the range of (51 to 75%). In the case of Orofacial
Motricity eighteen participated, being the result: 3
(16.7%) between (26 to 50%), 13 (72.2%) in the
range of (51 to 75%) and 2 (11.1%) in the range
of (76 to 100%). Finally, the thirty-five who work in
more than one area, 16 (45.7%) had the proportion
between (26 to 50%) and 19 (54.3%) between (51
to 75%) (Table1).
Other pieces of information of the questionnaire
were also evaluated, such as, the level of knowledge
and implementation of biossecurity standards, it
was observed that the professional who had the
percentage of questionnaire in the range of 0 to
25% is in the area of Audiology Clinic, works in
private clinic and have between one and ten years
experience. Similarly, most professionals between
26 to 50% are also of Audiology Clinic, work in
private clinic, however with more than ten years of
graduation.
Those who had their percentage range of 51 to
75% work in more than one area, work in private
clinic and has between one and five years of graduation. Those who are between 76 to 100% are mostly
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097
1094
Albuquerque MA, Bernardo VRS, Silva LO, Nagib LC, Frota S
Table 1 – Indicators of Knowledge and application of the rules on Biosafety by the professional
interviewed according to area of expertise
AREA OF
PERFORMACE
Audiology
Clinic
Occupational
Audiology
Voice
Neonatology
Language
Motricity
Orofacial
Over an area of
performance
Grand Total
№ OF
PROFESSIONALS
INTERVIEWED
TRACK
OF
(0-25%)
TRACK
OF
(26-50%)
TRACK
OF
(51-75%)
28
1(3,6%)
17(60,7%)
10(35,7%)
6
3 (50%)
3 (50%)
3
5
5
2 (66,7%)
1 (20%)
3 (60%)
3 (60%)
2 (40%)
18
3 (16,7%)
13 (72,2%)
35
16(45,7%)
19 (54,3%)
100
professionals working in Orofacial Motricity, working
in Hospital and private clinic and has between one
and five years of graduation.
DISCUSSION
Currently, the speech therapy practice faces
several possibilities that are not only related with the
work environment, but also with different materials
and procedures. Thus, it becomes necessary that
each professional must have more responsibility
with his own health and safety as well as his patients.
According to the results presented above, it is
observed in Figure 2 that most professionals interviewed follow the biosecurity measures. However,
some answers were used as target for discussion.
Figure 2 shows the overall responses given
by audiologists interviewed in each issue of the
questionnaire of biosecurity. In question 1, on the
removal of (rings, wedding bands, watches and
bracelets), 52 respondents negatively, 47 positively
and 1 did not respond. According to the literature,
it is recommended the removal of (rings, wedding
bands, watches and bracelets) during the attendance, because of the accumulation of microorganisms, which characterizes risk of cross-contamination 2,4, 14, 16.In this study, it was observed that
most professionals interviewed do not follow this
recommendation. Most of professionals who do not
remove the things mentioned above, act in the area
of Clinical Audiology and occupational. In addition,
some of the respondents who do not remove (rings,
wedding bands, watches and bracelets), responded
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097
1
45
50
TRACK
OF
(76-100%)
1(33,3%)
1(20%)
2(11,1%)
4
in question 22 of the questionnaire did not have
class on biosecurity.
In question 3.3, on the use of nail varnish, as
shown in Figure 2, 82 respondents that use nail
varnish and 18 not use, already in question 3.5, 54
responded that use dark nail varnish and many work
in the area of Orofacial and Motricity in neonatology.
The use of dark Nail Polish increases the risk of
contamination and exposure to microorganisms,
which should be avoided according to the literature,
because it makes the viewing of dirt 2.14. This risk
becomes even greater in neonatology Units, in
which patients have immature immune system 17.
In question 5.2, according to figure 2, 67 respondents answered that they work, even when they
have a cold and don’t wear protective masks. The
air is one of the main way of disease transmission
by droplets and aerosols, so the use of protective
mask 2.
In Figure 2 there is another aspect, the replies
given in the questionnaire issues 7.1 and 7.3, about
hand washing is made by most respondents just
before and after the patients` examination. This
sanitation could also be held during therapy and in
front of the patient, appreciating the careful with this.
But, as the result of 7.2 issues, 69 responded that
don’t wash their hands during the examination and
in question 7.4, 57 don’t wash their hands in front
of patients. In addition, it is also recommended the
neatness of the forearms 2.14, which according to the
responses, the majority of respondents did not do
it at all.
With respect to the procedure used after using
the lab coat, point 11.4 of the questionnaire, as
Biosafety in Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences
shown in Figure 2, 60 professionals interviewed
replied that don’t keep the coat in plastic bags and
in question 11.5, 82 responded that transportation
is not made inside out. The recommendation is that
the coat should be used exclusively in the workplace
and after the working, he should be transported
inside out in plastic packing 2.
As for question 16 of the questionnaire on
the use of sodium hypochlorite for disinfection of
articles, 68 respondents do not use this product.
In literature there is a recommendation of sodium
hypochlorite for disinfection of intermediate level
of articles 2, therefore other options of substances
were not given, in order to obtain the amount of
knowledge and use of this procedure by participating professionals.
In addition to the comments on the responses it
was also observed in Table 1 that the professionals
who had the knowledge of standard precautionary
measures between 76 to 100%, are those who
have, according to information gathered in the
questionnaire, between one and five years of
experience, which leads us to reflect if the responsibility with biosecurity decreases while the length of
attendance of the professional increases or those
who graduated a long time ago did not have this
content at graduation.
The questioning about the effectiveness of
the guidelines given the about Biosafety should
be done. The guidelines must be given to the
academic, in a didactic manner, so that the future
professional can be able to practice them, and so,
client and professional can be adequately protected
and informed about the practice. It is important for
the professional to be aware of the updates on
the biosecurity standards, because new and great
challenges appear every day.
The fact that the Professional does not pay
attention to such precautionary measures like
immunization, proper hygiene of the hands, use of
personal protective equipment, proper management
of healthcare, waste-Sharps disposal, processing of
1095
items and surfaces, may cause what is usually called
cross-infection, which disseminates pathogenic
microorganisms to the patients professional, other
professionals, families, and hospital environment.
This is certainly a bad habit, with unforeseen
consequences.
It Would fit here other discussions; However,
these were cited in various areas and were considered very important.
It is hoped that this study will serve as a reflection
to the professionals who participated in the survey
and to all those who have access to it.
CONCLUSION
This research leads to the conclusion that
most professionals interviewed know and apply
the biosecurity measures, however, it is important
to focus on the hundred professionals who participated in the survey, only 4% follow satisfactorily
such measures. This result leads to reflection that
even some actions have been performed, others
can have been discarded or not used properly
for example: the personal care (a good personal
hygiene, remove rings, wedding bands, watches
and bracelets before attendances, avoid using dark
Nail Polish ...), use individual protection equipment
and have the same care, make the correct washing
of hands and forearms, make the process of disinfection and sterilization of articles properly, etc.
It is relevant to the professionals ‘ statement on
biosecurity standards in undergraduate period and
promoting more studies on specific precautionary
measures for speech therapy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to speech language pathologists Silvana
Frota and Leila Nagib, for caring and guidance, and
the colleagues who helped with suggestions and
distribution of questionnaires.
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097
1096
Albuquerque MA, Bernardo VRS, Silva LO, Nagib LC, Frota S
RESUMO
Objetivo: pesquisar, entre um grupo de fonoaudiólogos, o grau de conhecimento e utilização das
normas de biossegurança na rotina clínica. Método: foi realizada pesquisa por meio de um questionário respondido por cem profissionais de diferentes áreas de atuação (Audiologia Clínica, Audiologia
Ocupacional, Voz, Neonatologia, Linguagem, Motricidade Orofacial e que atuam em mais de uma
área). Cada item, respondido de forma positiva, correspondia a 1 ou 2 pontos, sendo a máxima
pontuação (100%) correspondendo a 80 pontos. As respostas obtidas foram analisadas e as pontuações encontradas, padronizadas, ou seja, transformadas em índices percentuais indicando seu
desempenho. O valor da percentagem de cada questionário poderia variar de 0 a 100%, sendo que
quanto maior a percentagem obtida, maior o conhecimento e aplicabilidade das normas de biossegurança pelo profissional na rotina clínica. Foram adotadas as faixas de (0-25%), (26-50%), (51-75%)
e (76-100%) para distinguir o nível de conhecimento e aplicação das medidas de precaução pelos
participantes. Resultados: dos cem fonoaudiólogos avaliados por meio dos questionários (100%),
1% obteve a percentagem na faixa de (0 a 25%), 45% em (26 a 50%), 50% entre (51 a 75%) e 4%
(76 a 100%). Conclusão: a maioria dos profissionais que participaram conhece e aplica as medidas
de biossegurança.
DESCRITORES: Exposição a Agentes Biológicos; Riscos Ocupacionais; Fonoaudiologia
REFERENCES
1. Carvalho CMRS, Madeira MZA, Tapety FI,
Alves ELM, Martins MCC, Brito JNPO. Aspectos
de biossegurança relacionados ao uso do jaleco
pelos profissionais de saúde: uma revisão de
literatura. Texto & Contexto – Enfermagem.
2009;18(2):355-60.
2. Conselho Federal de Fonoaudiologia. Medidas
de Controle de Infecção para Fonoaudiólogos –
Manual de Biossegurança. 8º Colegiado, Brasília ,
2007.
3. Brasil. Lei nº 11.105, de 24 de março de 2005.
Regulamenta os incisos II, IV e V do § 1º do art.
225 da Constituição Federal, estabelece normas
de segurança e mecanismos de fiscalização de
atividades que envolvam organismos geneticamente
modificados – OGM e seus derivados, cria o
Conselho Nacional de Biossegurança – CNBS,
reestrutura a Comissão Técnica Nacional de
Biossegurança – CTNBio, dispõe sobre a Política
Nacional de Biossegurança – PNB, revoga a Lei
nº 8.974, de 5 de janeiro de 1995, e a Medida
Provisória nº 2.191-9, de 23 de agosto de 2001, e
os art. 5º, 6º, 7º, 8º, 9º, 10 e 16 da Lei nº 10.814, de
15 de dezembro de 2003, e dá outras providências.
Diário Oficial da União 2005; 28 mar.
4. Ministério da Saúde. Norma Regulamentadora
NR-32. Segurança e saúde no trabalho em serviços
de saúde. Disponível em: http://www.mte.gov.br/
legislacao/normas_regulamentadoras/nr_32.pdf
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097
5. Bonis M, Costa MAF. Ética da alteridade nas
relações entre biossegurança em saúde e bioética.
Ciências & Cognição. 2009;14(3):92-102.
6. Bonis M, Costa MAF. Educação em biossegurança
e bioética: articulação necessária em biotecnologia.
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2009;14(6):2107-14.
7. Neves TP, Porto MFS, Marinho CLC, Braga
AMCB. O conceito de biossegurança à luz da ciência
pós-normal: avanços e perspectivas para a saúde
coletiva. Saúde e Sociedade. 2007;16(3):158-68.
8. Gir E, Netto JC, Malaguti SE, Canini SRMS,
Hayashida M, Machado AA. Acidente com
material biológico e vacinação contra hepatite B
entre graduandos da área de saúde. Rev. Latino
Americana de Enfermagem. 2008;16(3):401-6.
9. Marziale MHP, Silva EJ, Haas VJ, Robazzi MLCC.
Acidentes com material biológico em hospital da
Rede de Prevenção de Acidentes do Trabalho –
REPAT. Rev. Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional.
2007;32(115):109-19.
10. Scheidt KLS, Rosa LRS, Lima EFA. As ações
de biossegurança implementadas pelas comissões
de controle de infecções hospitalares. Rev.
Enfermagem UERJ. 2006;14(3):372-7.
11. Wilburn S, Eijkemans G. Protecting health
workers from occupational exposure to HIV,
hepatitis, and other bloodborne pathogens: from
research to practice. Asian-Pacific Newslett on
Occup Health and Safety. 2007;13:8-12.
Biosafety in Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences
12. Bacha SMC, Gíglio VP, Ríspoli CFM, Brasil
MLR. Biossegurança em Fonoaudiologia. Pulso
Editorial; 2005.
13. Perdelli F, Cristina ML, Sartini M, Spagnolo
AM, Dallera M, Ottria G et al. Fungal contamination
in Hospital Environments. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2006; 27(1):44-7.
14. Mancini PC, Teixeira LC, Resende LM,
Gomes AM, Vicente LCC, Oliveira PM. Medidas
de biossegurança em audiologia. Revista Cefac.
2008;10(4): 603-10.
15. Hayden MK, Blom DW, Lyle EA, Moore
CG, Weinstein RA. Risk of hand or glove
contamination after contact with patients colonized
with vancomycin- resistant enterococcus or the
colonized patients environment. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2008;29:149-54.
16. Scheidt KLS, Carvalho M. Avaliação prática da
lavagem das mãos pelos profissionais de saúde
em atividades lúdico-educativas. Rev. Enfermagem
UERJ. 2006;14(2)221-5.
17. Neves ZCP, Tipple AFV, Souza ACS, Pereira
MS, Melo DS, Ferreira LR. Higienização das mãos:
o impacto de estratégias de incentivo à adesão
entre profissionais de saúde de uma unidade de
Terapia Intensiva Neonatal. Rev. Latino Americana
de Enfermagem. 2006;14(4): 546-52.
18. Silva CLP, Hugonnet S, Pfister R, Touveneau
S, Dharan S, Barbe KP et al. Reduction of health
care-associated infection risk in neonates by
1097
successful hand hygiene promotion. Pediatrics.
2007;120(2):382-90.
19. Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Hoffman PN, Pratt RJ.
Public perception and the social and microbiological
significance of uniforms in the prevention and
control of healthcare-associated infections: an
evidence review. British Journal of infection Control.
2007;8(4)10-21.
20. Uneke CJ, Ijeoma PA. The potential for
nosocomial infection transmission by white coats
used by physicians in Nigeria:Implications for
improved patient-safety initiatives. World Health &
Population. 2010;11(3)24-34.
21. Rossi D, Devienne KF, Raddi MSG.
Influência de fluídos biológicos na sobrevivência
de staphylococcus aureus sobre diferentes
superfícies secas. Rev. Ciênc Farm Básica Apl.
2008;29(2):209-12.
22. Andrade D, Ferrareze MVG, Santos LS, Moraes
CM, Freire E, Ito IY. Uso de sabões e detergentes
em serviços de saúde:novos contextos, outros
olhares? Rev. Panam Infectol. 2006;8(4):33-7.
23. Gerding DN, Muto CA, Owens RC. Measures
to control and prevent clostridium difficile infection.
Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2008;46(S1):43-9.
24. Obasi C, Agwu A, Akinpelu W, Hammons R,
Clark C, Etienne-Cummings R et al. Contamination
of equipment in emergency settings:An exploratory
study with a targeted automated intervention. Annals
of Surgical Innovation and Research. 2009;3(8):1-9.
Received on: June 27, 2011
Accepted on: April 04, 2012
Mailing address:
Marcela do Amaral de Albuquerque
Rua Morais e Silva, 51 – Bl II Apt 1302
Tijuca – Rio de Janeiro
CEP: 20271-030
E-mail: cela.albqrq@gmail.com
Rev. CEFAC. 2013 Set-Out; 15(5):1088-1097