Profile of nursing professionals on medical waste management
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130811318Palabras clave:
Nursing, Waste management, Medical waste, Environment, Public healthResumen
The aim of this study was to analyze the behavior with respect to the correct classification of medical waste of nurses working at hospitals in two cities located in the north and northwest of the state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). This is an exploratory-descriptive and cross-sectional study on medical waste management (MWM). It was found that the nurses have difficulty in identifying and sorting the waste according to the classification proposed in the Resolution RDC no. 306/04. This fact may influence the time of disposal, which could increase the risks to workers' health and the environment, and also increase hospital costs for the treatment and disposal of waste.
Descargas
Citas
BRASIL, MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE. Resolução RDC Nº 306, DE 7 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2004. Dispõe sobre o Regulamento Técnico para o gerenciamento de resíduos de serviços de saúde e dá outras providencias. Brasília, 2004. Available from: http://www4.anvisa.gov.br/base/visadoc/CP/CP%5B20735-1-0%5D.pdf . Access on 2013 MAY. 10.
OLINISKI S.R; LACERDA M.R. As diferentes faces do ambiente de trabalho em saúde. Cogitare Enferm. ;9(2):43-52, 2004.
SISINNO C.L.S; MOREIRA J.C. Ecoeficiência: um instrumento para a redução da geração de resíduos e desperdícios em estabelecimentos de
saúde. Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 21, n. 6, Dec. 2005. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2005000600039&lng=en&nrm=iso. Access on 2013 Apr. 15.
BRASIL, MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE. Resolução 196/96 do Conselho Nacional de Saúde/MS Sobre Diretrizes e Normas Regulamentadoras de Pesquisa envolvendo seres humanos. Diário Oficial da União, 10 de outubro de 1996. Available from: http://ppgl.unb.br/site/images/arquivos/Resolucao196-96.pdf. Access on 2013 MAY. 10.
LOBIONDO-WOOD G, HABER J. Pesquisa em enfermagem: métodos, avaliação, crítica e utilização. 4 ed Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan, 2001.
KURCGANT P. Gerenciamento em enfermagem. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara; Koogan; 2005.
REZENDE L.R. Vulnerabilidade dos geradores de resíduos de saúde frente às resoluções n. 358 Conama e RDC n. 306 Anvisa. O Mundo da Saúde.; 2.ed.; 1-10; 2006.
ELEUTÉRIO J.P.L; HAMADA J; PADIM A.F, 2008. Gerenciamento eficaz no tratamento dos Resíduos de Serviços de Saúde - estudo de duas tecnologias. XXVIII Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção – Enegep, Rio de Janeiro: Available from: http://www.abepro.org.br/biblioteca/enegep2008_TN_STP_069_490_11445.pdf. Access on: 2013 MAY. 25.
DIAS L.M.A; FARIA R.C; CARVALHO T.A.H; LEITE M.P.B.A; OLIVEIRA. F.S. Incineração de resíduos de serviço de saúde-lixo hospitalar: uma oportunidade de receita para o hospital escola de Itajubá. VI Simpósio de Excelência em Gestão e Tecnologia-SEGeT. Resende-RJ, 2009.
Available from: http://www.aedb.br/seget/artigos09/274_274_Artigo_Seget.pdf. Access on 2013 JUN. 03.
COMISSÃO NACIONAL DE ENERGIA NUCLEAR. Gerência de rejeitos radioativos em instalações radioativas. Rio de Janeiro: CNEN, 1985. Available from: http://www.cnen.gov.br/seguranca/normas/mostra-norma.asp?op=605. Access on 2013 Jul. 29.
SILVA, N.M.; RAMPELOTTO E.M. Segregação dos resíduos sólidos hospitalares. Revista de Monografias Ambientais. Santa Maria, vol.(5), n°5, p. 1174 – 1183, 2012. ISSN: 2236 -1308.
BURG, G; SILVEIRA, D.D. Proposal of an environmental management model for Nephrology services. Acta paul. enferm. [online]. 2008, vol.21, pp. 192-197. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-21002008000500010&lng=en&nrm=i. Access on 2012 Jul. 17.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
