4.2 Article

An observational study of safe and risky practices in funeral homes in South Africa

期刊

SAMJ SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 109, 期 8, 页码 587-591

出版社

SA MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.7196/SAMJ.2019.v109i8.13523

关键词

-

资金

  1. Soweto Matlosana SAMRC Collaborating Centre for HIV/AIDS and TB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Funeral home personnel are at risk of exposure to infectious hazards. The high prevalence of infectious diseases in South Africa means that these workers and family members of deceased individuals are vulnerable to infection if proper safety measures and equipment are not used. Objectives. To collect observational information on funeral industry practices in order to assess the safety of handling corpses and exposure to risk that could result in disease transmission. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted across two locations from August to October 2015. Funeral homes in Klerksdorp and Soweto were approached. The study team did facility assessments and observed preparation practices, focusing on safety equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE) and contact with hazardous materials. Interviews with funeral home personnel and relatives of the deceased were also conducted. Results. Of the funeral homes, 23.0% (20/87) agreed to participate. A median of 5 personnel (interquartile range 4 -8) were employed per facility. It was observed that not all PPE was used despite availability. Gloves, aprons and face masks were most commonly worn, and no personnel were observed wearing boots, gowns or plastic sleeves. Funeral homes were located near food outlets, schools and open public spaces, and not all had access to proper biohazardous waste disposal services. Of 5 family members who were interviewed for the study, none reported being willing to partake in the funeral preparation procedure. Conclusions. There is a need to standardise the use of safety equipment, waste disposal methods and location designation in the funeral industry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据