rately measure fluid loss, if that's a concern.)
Pour alternative
Systems that require OR staff to manually pour contents down the
drain may require the smallest capital outlay, but there's no question
that they're also the most dangerous. We can speak from experience.
We know of a nurse who was removing the suction tubing from a
suction canister that hadn't been fully disconnected. The sudden
change in pressure ejected the contents into her eyes, nose and
mouth. Luckily, she wasn't injured, but it's the kind of experience
you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.
The risk of occupational exposure can have an emotional impact as
well as a physical one, and the literature is clear that nurses are most
in harm's way when it comes to splashing, which is especially com-
mon around and on the head, face and eyes. We also know that expo-
sures are greatly underreported. And even when no splashing is
apparent, pouring also carries the risk that aerosolized particles will
contaminate clothes and work surfaces.
Heavy concerns
Solidifying the waste and hauling it away generally eliminates the pour-
ing hazard, but in a high-volume environment, its costs can add up
quickly. And in addition to the cost of the red-bag waste disposal, there
are costs associated with canisters, hard-shell outer containers, solidi-
fying agents and labels. It's been estimated that up to 40% of hospital-
regulated medical waste is related to suction canister disposal.
Another big problem is that solidified waste is heavy. It's not unusu-
al for a single surgery to produce 3 or 4 3-liter containers that weigh 6
to 8 pounds each.
You may also waste precious OR time while you wait for solidifiers
J U L Y 2 0 1 7 • O U T PA T I E N T S U R G E R Y. N E T • 1 6 1
