Hazardous substances in frequently used professional cleaning products.

A growing number of studies have identified cleaners as a group at risk for adverse health effects of the skin and the respiratory tract. Chemical substances present in cleaning products could be responsible for these effects. Currently, only limited information is available about irritant and health hazardous chemical substances found in cleaning products. We hypothesized that chemical substances present in cleaning products are known health hazardous substances that might be involved in adverse health effects of the skin and the respiratory tract. We performed a systematic review of cleaning products used in the Swiss cleaning sector. We surveyed Swiss professional cleaning companies (n = 1476) to identify the most used products (n = 105) for inclusion. Safety data sheets (SDSs) were reviewed and hazardous substances present in cleaning products were tabulated with current European and global harmonized system hazard labels. Professional cleaning products are mixtures of substances (arithmetic mean 3.5 +/- 2.8), and more than 132 different chemical substances were identified in 105 products. The main groups of chemicals were fragrances, glycol ethers, surfactants, solvents; and to a lesser extent, phosphates, salts, detergents, pH-stabilizers, acids, and bases. Up to 75% of products contained irritant (Xi), 64% harmful (Xn) and 28% corrosive (C) labeled substances. Hazards for eyes (59%) and skin (50%), and hazards by ingestion (60%) were the most reported. Cleaning products potentially give rise to simultaneous exposures to different chemical substances. As professional cleaners represent a large workforce, and cleaning products are widely used, it is a major public health issue to better understand these exposures. The list of substances provided in this study contains important information for future occupational exposure assessment studies.

Analysis of patient physical restraints usage in a Swiss emergency service

Introduction: Emergency services (ES) are often faced with agitated,confused or aggressive patients. Such situations may require physicalrestraint. The prevalence of these measures is poorly documented,concerning 1 to 10% of patients admitted in the ES. The indications forrestraint, the context and the related complications are poorly studied.The emergency service and the security service of our hospital havedocumented physical restraint for several years, using specific protocolsintegrated into the medical records. The study evaluated the magnitudeof the problem, the patient characteristics, and degree of adherence tothe restraint protocol.Methods: Retrospective study of physical restraint used on adultpatients in the ES in 2009. The study included analysis of medical anddemographic characteristics, indications justifying restraint and qualityof restraint documentation. Patients were identified from computerizedES and security service records. The data were supplemented byexamination of patients' medical records.Results: In 2009, according to the security service, 390 patients (1%)were physically restrained in the ES. The ES computerized systemidentified only 196 patients. Most patients were male (62%). The medianage was 40 years (15-98 years; P90 = 80 years). 63 % of the situationsoccurred between 18h00 and 6h00, and most frequently on Saturday(19%). Substance or alcohol abuse was present in 48.7% of cases andacute psychiatric crisis was mentioned in 16.7%. In most cases,restraint was motivated by extreme agitation or auto / hetero-aggressiveviolence. Most patients (68 %) were restrained with upper limb andabdominal restraints. More than three anatomic restraints werenecessary in 52 % of the patients. Intervention of security guards wasrequired in 77% of the cases. 61 restraint protocols (31 %) were missingand 57% of the records were incomplete. In many cases, the protocolsdid not include the signature of the physician (22%) or of the nurse(43.8%). Medical records analysis did not allow reliable estimation ofthe number of restraint-induced complications.Conclusions: Physical restraint is most often motivated by majoragitation and/or secondary to substance abuse. Caregivers regularlycall security guards for help. Restraint documentation is often missing orincomplete, requiring major improvement in education and prescription.