OSHA Inspection: AMERICUS URGENT CARE

Issued

Jun 5, 2013

Abate by

Jul 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,000 · Current $2,000

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(2)(i): Engineering and work practice controls were not used to eliminate or minimize employees exposure:  (a)  In the examination areas, on or about February 21, 2013 and at times prior to, scalpels that did not have engineered sharps injury protections were used during medical procedures, resulting in a bloodborne pathogen hazard.  Employees with occupational exposure to BBPs worked at the urgent care facility.  The employees used scalpels while performing medical procedures such as making incisions.  The scalpels were not designed with any engineered sharps injury protections.  Commercially available safety scalpels with retractable blades are available that could have been used to perform the procedures.

Issued

Jun 5, 2013

Abate by

Jul 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(iv)(B): The review and update of the exposure control plan did not document annually consideration and implementation of appropriate commercially available and effective safer medical devices designed to eliminate or minimize occupational exposure:  (a)  On or about February 21, 2013 and at times prior to, the employer failed to annually document consideration and implementation of appropriate commercially available and effective safer medical devices designed to eliminate or minimize occupational exposure, resulting in a biohazard.  Clinical staff members at the urgent care facility were occupationally exposed to bloodborne pathogens while performing procedures such as, drawing blood, giving injections, inserting IV needles, etc.  The facility utilized a written Exposure Control Plan.    The program did require that at least one aspect of the program be evaluated on an annual basis:  safety needle and sharp devices would be evaluated annually for safety and efficacy in needlestick prevention.  And when necessary, alternative engineering controls and work practices would be considered to prevent exposure.  The employer failed to document the annual evaluation.  No prior exposure incidents were identified at the urgent care facility.

Issued

Jun 5, 2013

Abate by

Jul 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(v): The employer, who is required to establish an Exposure Control Plan, did not solicit input from non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient care who are potentially exposed to injuries from contaminated sharps in the identification, evaluation and selection of effective engineering and work practice controls and did not document the solicitation in the Exposure Control plan:  a)  On or about February 21, 2013 and at times prior to, the employer failed to solicit input from non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient care who are potentially exposed to injuries from contaminated sharps in the identification, evaluation, and selection of effective engineering and work practice controls and document the solicitation in the Exposure Control Plan, resulting in a biohazard.  Clinical staff members at the urgent care facility were occupationally exposed to bloodborne pathogens when performing procedures such as, drawing blood, giving injections, inserting IV needles, etc.  The facility utilized a written Exposure Control Plan.    When necessary, alternative engineering controls and work practices were considered to prevent exposure; however, the employer failed solicit and document input from employees.  No prior exposure incidents were identified at the urgent care facility.

Issued

Jun 5, 2013

Abate by

Jul 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(1)(i)(A): Warning labels were not affixed to containers used to store, transport or ship blood or other potentially infectious materials:  (a)  On or about February 21, 2013 and at times prior to, the employer failed to affix warning labels to a container used to store, transport or ship blood or other potentially infectious materials, resulting in a biohazard.  Clinical staff members at the urgent care facility were occupationally exposed to bloodborne pathogens while performing procedures, drawing blood, giving injections, inserting IV needles, etc.  The facility utilized a written Exposure Control Plan.    The employer utilized plastic containers to dispose of contaminated syringes and other sharps.  The containers were supplied by a contractor who also disposed of the waste.  While a majority of the containers were properly labeled, one was found in an examination area with no labeling.   No prior exposure incidents were identified at the urgent care facility.

Issued

Jun 5, 2013

Abate by

Jul 1, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1200(e)(1): The employer did not develop, implement, and/or maintain at the workplace a written hazard communication program which describes how the criteria specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(f), (g), and (h) will be met:  (a)  Throughout the facility, on February 21, 2013 and at times prior to, the employer did not develop or implement a written hazard communication program for employees who used hazardous chemicals including but not limited to PDI Sani-Cloth AF3 Germicidal Disposable Wipes, resulting in a chemical hazard.  Employees utilized cleaning products to sanitize the working surfaces.  Hazardous materials were briefly addressed in the written Emergency Response Plan; however, the employer did not have a written hazard communication program.