Exactly where would doctors send a needle for testing for infectious organisms
after a needle stick in cases where the testing could make a difference for
doctors and their patients?...

What is being asked is not about protocol. What is being asked is
about where the testing would be done in cases where the test results
could make a difference to the doctors and their patients. It is one thing
for doctors explaining that needles are not tested and would not know
where to have a needle tested anyway compared with knowing where to send
a needle for testing for infectious organisms and explaining that in the
light of knowing where it would not be necessary.

The point is, Don, no clinician would ever send a needle in to get tested.
There's no point to it. It is too inaccurate, and would have no bearing on
ANY clinical treatment that a doctor would initiate. The results of testing
a syringe would NEVER make any difference to the doctors and their patients.
The "protocols" you refer to are designed to provide the most accurate
possible useful information. Since no doctor ever sends a needle in, no
doctor would know where to send it. Get it?

In the extemely unlikely theoretical event I wanted to get a needle tested,
I would write an order in the patient's chart "have needle from this syringe
tested for infectious agents". I am certain that such an order would be
followed shortly by a page from the lab director or pathologist with a
question like "WTF?", followed by a lecture on how pointless such a test is,
and an explanation why it would cost a fortune to do that testing.

Now, you can do your own homework on this. Call the lab director for various
hospitals in your area. You will no doubt have to call several, because
many, most, maybe all, will think initially that you are some kind of kook.
They would certainly not do the testing there, but might find for you the
number of commercial forensics lab. Or, look up the number of the criminal
forensics lab in your state. THAT'S where your needle would be tested, but
chances are they'll hang up on you or otherwise blow you off unless it's a
criminal matter. If they do agree to test it, it will certainly take months
and cost thousands.

HMc

There is no conceivable place where a needle would be sent. It does not
contain enough {*filter*} to obtain a serum specimen (HIV, hepatitis and
other organisms are sampled from serum, after {*filter*} is clotted then
centrifuged). Minimum quantities depending on the lab's equipment ranges
from 1-3cc of serum (which requires anywhere from 2-8cc of whole {*filter*},
a full tube).

My answer is not based on protocol. Its based on the limitations of the
equipment in common use today. However, most needlestick protocols and
algorhythms are based upon the same limitations Im basing my answer on.

It is one thing

Doctors dont know where they would be sent, because THEY ARE NOT SENT
ANYWHERE. Its just not done. If you have a stick from a positively
identified source, you test the source. That is the industry standard.
If you do NOT have an identifiable source, such as from a sharps box or
a needle left lying around a drug house you simply undergo baseline
testing to determine that you are not ALREADY HIV/Hep positive and then
you make a decision: do I or do I not take prophylaxis. The standard in
unidentifiable contaminated sticks is to offer prophylaxis. Places that
do not offer a "rapid HIV" assay ALSO provide HIV prophylaxis until the
source's lab results are available. Prophylaxis has been documented to
be most effective at preventing seroconversion when started within a few
HOURS (like TWO) of exposure.

EVEN IF there was some commonly available way to test a needle with just
a smear of {*filter*} on it, those results would not be quickly available,
and prophylaxis would be offered to the patient pending whatever kind of
result could be obtained. Again, at this point in time, this sort of
testing is not available.

Again, if the source is known or suspected to be infected with a
{*filter*}borne pathogen (or the source is unknown) the routine is to offer
prophylactic meds (which can be given for up to several weeks in the
case of an unknown source).

I'm sure the CDC (or CDCP or whatever their latest name is) can
substantiate what I and everyone else have told you.

Dave

Thank you for the information Howard and Dave !

Where can needles be tested ?...

As others have pointed out repeatedly, needles aren't sent anywhere for
testing.  The patient the needle came from can be tested, and the person
stuck by the needle can be tested, but needles themselves are *not* tested.
It just isn't done.

You're starting to look a lot like a troll.....

Send them to me with a money order for $79.95 and I'll get right on it for you.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Looks like somebody's a slow learner...

<plonk>

On 27 Jun 2004 11:42:13 -0400, Don Saklad

Suggest that you just wait and see if the needle gets sick. In the
meantime, take good care of it, feed it well, etc. See Google on

growing needles

for more.

bob

Apparently, he is True Usenet Kook. After his incessant nattering about
his kidney stone, I did a search on him; he seems to spend a lot of time
at the Boston Public Libraries without actually reading anything.

--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather

Usenet 101

If it looks like a troll, and smells like a troll, it's a troll.

If it cannot see logical answers to its silly questions, it's a troll.

Conclusion:
It's a troll. [Rocket Science is Something Rather Different]

--
Andrew

TrollShifting
http://www.advicemeant.com/troll/
"Every Troll Has An Absolute Right to Demonstrate Their Stupidy In Public"