U.S. Department of Labor
Infectious Diseases SER Background Document
OSHA

                           Section I.  Introduction
OSHA may propose a new occupational safety and health rule on occupational exposure to infectious diseases that would cover exposures not already addressed by the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030).  In 2005, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) petitioned OSHA for a rule addressing pandemic influenza.  And in 2009, AFSCME petitioned OSHA for a rule addressing occupational exposure to infectious diseases.  In response to these requests, OSHA published a variety of guidance materials addressing pandemic influenza and is now considering the need for a standard addressing the broader issue of occupational exposure to infectious diseases.  OSHA has developed a regulatory framework for an infectious diseases rule that demonstrates OSHA's current thinking on the elements that such a proposed rule would contain.

OSHA's regulatory framework would cover occupational exposure to contact, droplet and airborne transmissible infectious agents during the provision of direct patient care.  The ID rule would also cover occupational exposure to contact, droplet and airborne transmissible infectious agents during the performance of other covered tasks when those tasks are performed in settings where direct patient care is provided  or in the following three settings where contaminated materials are handled:  (1) settings where the contaminated materials originate from settings where direct patient care is provided; (2) settings where employees are working with human remains; and (3) diagnostic, research, and production laboratory facilities. (Section V provides tables showing the affected industry sectors in detail.)

The regulatory framework would cover workplaces and tasks for which enhanced infection control measures (e.g., the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) standard and transmission based precautions) are recommended to protect workers.  OSHA would not cover workers who have exposure to infectious diseases that can be adequately addressed by common public health measures (e.g., cough/sneeze etiquette and hand hygiene); this would include those who perform retail work and teachers and other non-medical school professionals.  Any rule OSHA proposes would emphasize effective and consistent infection control practices with the goal of preventing transmission of infectious diseases to workers covered by the rule.  OSHA believes that a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework would not only have the direct benefit of reducing occupational illness rates for covered workers, but also have the ancillary benefit of reducing illness rates for patients and other individuals, such as family members, who come into contact with covered workers.

It is widely recognized by experts in the field of occupational safety and health that a well-structured infection control program should include: (1) identification and isolation of infectious cases; (2) immunizations for vaccine-preventable diseases; (3) standard and transmission-based precautions; (4) training; (5) personal protective equipment; (6) management of healthcare workers' risks of exposure to infected persons, including post-exposure prophylaxis; and (7) work restrictions for exposed or infected healthcare personnel (Siegel et al., 2007).  The prevention strategies listed above are set forth in guidelines, such as those of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), a federal advisory committee that provides advice and guidance to the CDC and to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CDC/HICPAC's 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings (Siegel et al., 2007) (2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines) were an update of the 1996 version of these guidelines (Garner et al., 1996).  CDC updated the guidelines because of a number of developments in the healthcare industry.  As stated in the executive summary of the 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines:
      The transition of healthcare delivery from primarily acute care hospitals to other healthcare settings (e.g., home care, ambulatory care, free-standing specialty care sites, long-term care) created a need for recommendations that can be applied in all healthcare settings using common principles of infection control practice, yet can be modified to reflect setting-specific needs.  Accordingly, the revised guideline addresses the spectrum of healthcare delivery settings.

Further, as stated in the 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines, the objectives of these guidelines are to:

      1) provide infection control recommendations for all components of the healthcare delivery system, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, ambulatory care, home care and hospice; 2) reaffirm Standard Precautions as the foundation for preventing transmission during patient care in all healthcare settings; 3) reaffirm the importance of implementing Transmission-Based Precautions . . .; and 4) provide epidemiologically sound and, whenever possible, evidence-based recommendations.

In the United States, the CDC is recognized by the healthcare industry as the source for information on current recommendations for infection control practices in all healthcare settings, and the 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines contain the core recommendations central to controlling the transmission of infectious diseases.  These guidelines have been endorsed by professional associations such as the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) (Smith et al., 2008), the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) (Smith et al., 2008), and the Association of Operative Registered Nurses (AORN) (Tarrac, 2008).
The field of infection control is evolving as more improved methods are developed to protect patients and workers from exposure to infectious agents, and as more is learned about the transmission of specific infectious diseases.  CDC therefore publishes and updates infection control guidelines both for specific healthcare settings, such as outpatient settings (CDC, 2011e; CDC, 2011f), and for specific diseases, such as noroviruses (CDC, 2011g), as necessary to address current concerns in infection control.  However, CDC bases all of these guidelines on the 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines, which provide the core standard and transmission-based recommended precautions to protect patients and workers from exposure to infectious agents.
Some tasks defined as other covered tasks in the regulatory framework do not fall within the scope of CDC's infection control guidelines; these tasks are largely those conducted by workers in diagnostic, research, and production laboratory facilities and those conducted by workers involved in death care.  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) independently, and in collaboration with CDC, provides recommendations for protecting workers in laboratory facilities from exposure to infectious agents (CDC/NIH, 2009, NIH, 2013).  Individual states have infection control requirements that apply to death care workers (see, for example, Florida Department of State, 2000, 2004).
An ID rule would require covered employers to take these kinds of guidelines into consideration in developing and implementing their own infection control programs.  However, a rule would not cover occupational exposure to bloodborne diseases, which is already covered by OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030).  Also, while infectious diseases can be transmitted via contaminated food and water, or vectors such as rats and insects, these types of transmissions would not be covered by the rule, as OSHA does not believe that they constitute a significant route of occupational exposure for workers engaged in direct patient care and other covered tasks.
As an initial rulemaking step, and prior to the publication of a proposed rule, OSHA is convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel) in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or RFA (Sections 601 through 612 of Title 5 of the United States Code).  This Panel consists of members from OSHA, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (SBA's Office of Advocacy, or Advocacy), and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  The SBAR Panel identifies individuals representative of affected small entities, termed Small Entity Representatives (SERs). This process enables OSHA, with the assistance of Advocacy and OIRA, to obtain advice and recommendations from SERs about the potential impacts of a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework and about alternatives to the regulatory framework that may alleviate those impacts while meeting the objectives of the OSH Act.
The SBAR Panel has several purposes under the RFA, which establishes the requirements for a Panel.  First the Panel provides an opportunity early in the rulemaking process for affected small employers and SBA's Office of Advocacy to provide comment to OSHA.  Second, by reviewing the provisions of the regulatory framework, estimates of the potential impacts of a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework, and alternatives to the regulatory framework, SERs and the Panel can offer recommendations to OSHA on ways to tailor rules to make them more cost effective and less burdensome for affected small employers.  Third, early comment permits identification of different regulatory alternatives the Agency might consider.  Finally, the Panel, in its SBAR Panel report, can provide specific recommendations for the Agency to consider on issues such as reporting requirements, timetables of compliance, "performance" rather than "design" (or specification) standards, and whether some groups, including small employers, would be exempt from all or part of the rule.
Following the SBAR Panel, OSHA's next step, if the rulemaking process is continued, would be to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register.  The Preamble to the proposed rule would include an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to accompany the proposal in order to focus attention on the potential impacts on small businesses.  The IRFA would include a description of the Panel's recommendations and OSHA's responses to those recommendations.  Sections 603(b) and (c) of the RFA set out the requirements for the IRFA:
   (b)(1) a description of the reasons why action by the Agency is being considered;
   (b)(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
   (b)(3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
   (b)(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
   (b)(5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and
   (c) a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

An alternative under Section 603(c) need not be unique to small entities.  Rather, an alternative that meets OSHA's goals and reduces impacts for all affected entities can, and should, be considered as part of the Panel and regulatory flexibility analysis process.

OSHA is conducting this SBAR Panel early in the regulatory process in the interest of assuring that the Panel's report and recommendations can be fully considered in any subsequent rulemaking activities by the Agency.  OSHA has not yet estimated the aggregate benefits and costs of a rule addressing occupational exposure to infectious diseases because the Agency is still conducting ongoing work that is necessary for such estimates.  A contractor, hired by OSHA, has elicited the opinions of a group of infection control experts regarding current levels of compliance with recommended, non-mandatory infection control practices.  Additionally, the contractor is developing a model to estimate the reduction in illnesses and fatalities potentially attributable to a rule addressing occupational exposure to infectious diseases.  OSHA and the contractor are also conducting additional research, including the gathering of additional data on the potential costs of such a rule and on the risk associated with exposure to infectious diseases.  Thus, OSHA expects to expand its data sources, update its data, and conduct more extensive research on the costs, benefits, and impacts of such a rule from sources that are independent of the SBAR Panel process.
Under Section 609(b) of the RFA, the SBAR Panel must be provided any information that OSHA has available on issues related to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of Section 603(b), as well as Section 603(c), of the RFA.  The SBAR Panel collects comments on these issues.

Consistent with these requirements, this document, the Small Entity Representative Background Document (the SER Background Document), provides such information to the individual SERs who have agreed to participate in this SBAR Review.  The SER Background Document also satisfies the RFA's legal requirement that OSHA provide certain information to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy.  OSHA has placed all references in this document in the public docket, OSHA-2010-0003, and will be happy to help SERs obtain any references they would like to see.

The SER Background Document has been prepared to facilitate the SBAR Panel process.  In addition to this introductory section, the SER Background Document contains the following sections:

   * Section II (pp. 7-8) describes the legal requirements OSHA must meet if it engages in rulemaking;
   * Section III (pp. 9-26) explains the reasons why action is being considered by OSHA;
   * Section IV (pp. 27-50) summarizes and explains the important provisions of OSHA's regulatory framework;
   * Section V (pp. 51-58) identifies the types of small entities that would likely be affected by a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework;
   * Section VI (pp. 59-112) provides information on the potential impacts of a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework;
   * Section VII (pp. 113-118) describes potentially duplicative or conflicting rules; and
   * Section VIII (pp. 119-134) presents, for consideration by the SERs and the Panel, alternatives and/or options to the scope of, and provisions in, the regulatory framework.

Some of the most valuable contributions SERs make in the SBAR Panel process are their comments on the alternatives and/or options presented and their suggestions for other possible alternatives.

Appendix A contains the SBA definitions of small entities for all affected industries at the six-digit NAICS level. Appendix B contains a list of some of the relevant published infection control guidelines/regulations that are relevant to the regulatory framework.

Section II.  Legal Basis for an OSHA Standard Addressing Occupational Exposure to Infectious Diseases

The Secretary of Labor promulgates and enforces occupational safety and health standards under authority granted by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act).  OSHA must promulgate its standards by following specific procedures set forth in the OSH Act.

Section 3(8) of the OSH Act defines an "occupational safety and health standard" as "a standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment."  This definition has been interpreted to require the Agency to make a threshold showing of "significant risk" before it can promulgate a safety or health standard.  The Agency has discretion to "determine, in the first instance, what it considers to be a `significant' risk," and in making this determination, the appropriate question is whether "a reasonable person might  . . . consider the risk significant and take appropriate steps to decrease or eliminate it."  As such, the risk requirement is "not a mathematical straitjacket" and OSHA "has no duty to calculate the exact probability of harm." Courts recognize that a determination of what constitutes significant risk will be "based largely on policy considerations."  The Agency "is not required to support its finding that a significant risk exists with anything approaching scientific certainty[,]" and "is free to use conservative assumptions" and "risk[] error on the side of overprotection rather than under protection." It is sufficient for the Agency to make a general finding of significant risk; the Agency is not required to assess relative risk or disaggregate its significant risk analyses by hazard, workplace, or industry.

OSHA standards must be both technologically and economically feasible.  The Supreme Court has defined feasibility as "capable of being done."  OSHA demonstrates that a standard is technologically feasible "by pointing to technology that is either already in use or has been conceived and is reasonably capable of experimental refinement and distribution within the standard's deadlines."  In determining the economic feasibility of a standard, OSHA must consider the cost of compliance on an industry, rather than on individual employers.  The "practical question" in an economic feasibility analysis "is whether the standard threatens the competitive stability of an industry . . . or whether any intra-industry or inter-industry discrimination in the standard might wreck such stability or lead to undue concentration."

Section 6(b)(5) of the Act provides that, in promulgating a standard dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents, the Agency must "set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity."  Thus, the OSH Act does not call for OSHA to use benefit-cost analysis as a basis for rulemaking.  Instead, OSHA must reduce significant risk to the extent technologically and economically feasible without regard to a balancing of costs and benefits.

      Section III.  Reasons Why Action by the Agency is Being Considered

Infectious agents cause both healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and occupationally-acquired infections in healthcare workers (HCWs). HAIs are recognized as a serious and costly problem in the U.S. healthcare system.  According to the CDC, there are 1.7 million HAIs leading to approximately 99,000 patient deaths and $20 billion in additional healthcare costs in the U.S. system each year (CDC, 2013a).  Preventing the spread of infectious diseases in healthcare and related settings benefits workers, as well as patients, given that there is a well-recognized link between patient safety and healthcare worker safety and that integration of patient and worker safety initiatives has been shown to improve both patient outcomes and worker protection (TJC, 2012).

OSHA does not have a standard that addresses occupational exposure to infectious agents transmitted by contact, droplet and airborne routes. OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030) only covers infectious agents transmitted by the bloodborne route.  Precautions used for bloodborne pathogens (termed universal precautions) are not sufficient to protect people from infectious agents transmitted by the contact, droplet, and airborne routes.  The Agency has been, and continues to be, concerned about occupational exposure to infectious diseases not addressed by the Agency's Bloodborne Pathogens standard. OSHA documented occupational exposure to, and infection with, Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) in its notice of proposed rulemaking entitled, "Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis; Proposed Rule" (62 FR 54160, October 17, 1997).  Though OSHA has not promulgated a final rule on TB, the Agency did issue a compliance directive addressing occupational exposure to TB.  OSHA remains concerned about occupational exposure to TB, as well as numerous other infectious diseases, multidrug-resistant and totally drug-resistant infectious agents, and new and emerging infectious diseases (e.g., severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and H7N9 avian influenza).
Infectious agents pose a unique hazard because, unlike chemical hazards: 1) Each infectious agent replicates within infected individuals; and 2) Infected individuals can transmit the agent to other individuals, who can then transmit it to additional people and so on, with exponential spread of the disease possible from expanding rounds of transmission. SARS, for example, spread from China to numerous other countries in a matter of months, ending with more than 8,000 infections and approximately 800 deaths (World Health Organization (WHO), 2004a).

On May 6, 2010, OSHA published a request for information (RFI) on infectious diseases in health care, laboratory, and other associated work settings, and in July 2011, the Agency held two stakeholder meetings to further discuss the issue.  Stakeholder comments in response to the RFI and a subsequent review of the literature (some of which is discussed in this section of the SER Background Document) indicate that workers providing direct patient care and performing other covered tasks (as those terms are defined in the regulatory framework) are at risk of harm from occupational exposure to infectious agents, and that implementing recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices reduces the risk of transmission of infectious agents to these workers.

OSHA does not have data on the exact number of occupationally-acquired infectious diseases in the United States and other developed countries because there are no centralized surveillance systems that specifically document all occupationally-acquired infectious diseases. This type of data also suffers from underreporting.  For example, in the U.S., Singh (2011) and Sewell (1995) noted that underreporting of laboratory-associated infections is widely recognized and is in large part due to a lack of a systematic reporting system at the state, federal, or professional-society level that monitors these incidents.  In another example, Harding & Byers (2006) state that "our ability to accurately quantify laboratory-associated infections (LAIs) is hampered by an indifference to and, frequently, an unwillingness to report these incidents".  Despite this recognized underreporting, these authors determined from the literature on LAIs in a number of countries, that1,448 symptomatic LAIs, along with 36 deaths and 17 secondary infections had been documented over the 26-year period from 1979-2004. In an additional example from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, Haagsma et al. (2012) state that "only a small number of work-related infectious diseases are reported to the designated registration systems."    This is consistent with a review by Azaroff et al. (2002), where the authors state that documentation of the incidence of work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in diverse workplaces is "fragmentary, unreliable, and inconsistent."  The authors conclude that the actual incidence of work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities is underestimated by as much as several hundred percent.  There are a number of reasons for underreporting, including: difficulty attributing illnesses to workplace contact; workers continuing to report to work despite being ill; workplace incentives to keep reported illness and injury numbers low; workers utilizing their private insurance for treatment over workers' compensation or employee health centers; and workers' fear of losing their jobs as a consequence of reporting exposures to their superiors.
Illness data reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is likely subject to these under-reporting issues.  For example, there were only 420 influenza cases, and only about 2,000 cases of workplace-related infectious and parasitic diseases, reported in the BLS Occupational Injuries and Illnesses and Fatal Injuries Profiles in 2012 (BLS, 2012).  Given the millions of cases of influenza that occur yearly in the U.S., it is very unlikely that only 420 cases would have been occupationally acquired in 2012.  At the beginning of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, for example, CDC reported that 50 percent of the initial cases (13 of 26) identified in healthcare workers were deemed to have been acquired in a healthcare setting (CDC, 2009).
BLS recognizes that occupationally-acquired illnesses are underreported.  According to BLS, the Statistics of Occupational Illnesses and Injuries (SOII) Survey measures the "number of new work-related illness cases that are recognized, diagnosed, and reported during the year" (BLS, 2007).  However, "[i]n contrast [to] the overwhelming majority of the reported new illnesses," which are "easier to directly relate to workplace activity (for example, contact dermatitis or carpal tunnel syndrome)," there are "[s]ome conditions...[that] are difficult to relate to the workplace and are not adequately recognized and reported"  (Id.).
As noted above, the United States does not have a surveillance system to document occupational exposure to infectious diseases.  The limited surveillance information that is available on occupational exposure to infectious diseases among HCWs is mostly related to HCWs in hospitals. Some data exists from the National Surveillance System for Healthcare Workers (NaSH), which was a voluntary surveillance system developed by CDC to systematically collect information important to the prevention of occupational exposures and infections among HCWs.  The NaSH consisted of data collection modules for monitoring and managing immunization and tuberculin skin-testing programs, and recording exposures to blood and body fluids, vaccine-preventable diseases, and tuberculosis.  The only module that received even modest participation by hospitals was the module for recording exposures to blood and body fluids.  Participation in this module grew from five hospitals in 1995 to 64 facilities in 2000, but decreased to 18 in 2007.  The number of occupational exposures ranged from a low of 378 exposures in five hospitals in 1995 to a high of 4,334 occupational exposures in 64 hospitals in 2000.  A tiny fraction of the total number of hospitals in the U.S. participated, and those that participated were mainly large, teaching hospitals in urban settings (CDC, 2011h).
Data on worker exposures and infections in non-hospital settings include surveys of employees, employers and/or public health agencies and information collected in outbreak investigations. For example, a survey of home healthcare providers found that 5.9 percent of workers had received treatment for lab-confirmed healthcare-associated bacterial infections (most commonly Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Clostridium difficile) and nearly 60 percent of the providers reported that their healthcare establishment did not have a written policy that covered infection control procedures recommended for dealing with antibiotic-resistant infections (Kenneley, 2012).
There are also numerous peer-reviewed journal articles that document occupationally-acquired illnesses and outbreaks in healthcare and related settings.  Based on that evidence (discussed below), OSHA believes that the cases of occupationally-acquired illnesses reported in the SOII, to OSHA, or through the workers' compensation system, seriously underestimate the true number of workplace-acquired illnesses resulting from contact with infectious agents.
OSHA is evaluating a large number of peer-reviewed journal articles relating to occupational exposure to infectious agents.  The evidence thus far examined shows that there is a sustained prevalence of work-related infectious diseases in healthcare, laboratory, and associated work settings.  These infectious diseases are caused by agents that are transmissible to humans by different routes, including the contact, droplet and airborne routes.  A myriad of studies continues to document illnesses in HCWs resulting from occupational exposure to infectious agents. Some examples of the Agency's findings of peer-reviewed manuscripts on this topic are listed below.

   * Norovirus  -  Primary transmission route is contact: In 2003, eighty-four workers in a long-term care facility contracted norovirus during an outbreak in Pennsylvania (Wu et al., 2005).  More recently, a norovirus outbreak affected ninety patients and 265 HCWs in a hospital, with cases clustered in the coronary care and psychiatry units.  Thirteen affected HCWs required emergency department visits or hospitalization (Johnston et al., 2007).
   * Adenovirus infections  -  Primary transmission route is droplet: In 2007, eight workers in an intensive care unit (ICU) in Texas were infected with adenovirus after caring for a patient suffering from the disease (Yun & Prakash, 2008).  Similarly, from April through June 2007, fifteen health care trainees at one military hospital in Texas were hospitalized for pneumonia due to adenovirus that appeared to be occupationally-acquired (Lessa et al., 2009).
   * Mumps  -  Primary transmission route is droplet: In April through May 2006, seven workers at a tertiary care hospital contracted mumps during an outbreak in the facility.  This outbreak led to fifty-nine employees missing a total of 282 work days (an average of 4.8 days per worker) due to having contracted mumps, being non-immune, or awaiting symptom evaluation or laboratory test results (Bonebrake et al., 2010).
   * Pertussis  -  Primary transmission route is droplet: A three-month pertussis outbreak in a community hospital in 1999 resulted in twelve of fifty-three HCWs in the surgical unit being infected with pertussis (Pascual et al., 2006).  In 2003, ten HCWs at a Hematology-Oncology care unit in New Hampshire were infected with pertussis (Boulay et al., 2006) and eight workers at two different hospitals in Washington state contracted pertussis in 2004 (Baggett et al., 2007).
   * Tuberculosis (TB)  -  Primary transmission route is airborne: A 2011 report on exposure to TB at a medical center in Arizona concluded that 18 employees had a newly positive TB skin test and one employee was diagnosed with active TB (de Perio & Niemeier, 2012).  In a TB outbreak case in Nevada, a woman and her recently-delivered twins died from TB, and 61 people who had contact with the woman and/or her twins tested positive for TB infections (2 active, 59 latent). Of the active cases, 1 (50 percent) was a HCW. Of the latent cases, 21/59 (36 percent) were HCWs (Southern Nevada Health District, 2013). In a latent TB infection, the person is infected, but not symptomatic, and may or may not go on to have an active infection. If a person with latent TB infection gets appropriate treatment, however, it is much less likely the person will progress to an active TB infection.  The high incidence of multi-drug resistant strains of TB amplifies the concern. A recent antibiotic resistance threat report by CDC classifies drug-resistant TB as a "serious" health threat in the United States (CDC, 2013b).

The peer-reviewed literature also suggests that HCWs are especially susceptible to exposures during the early stages of the emergence of novel infectious agents or novel strains of known infectious agents.  Workers in laboratories that are tasked with the identification of the infectious agent causing the outbreak are similarly susceptible to exposures.  In these cases, it is very likely that both the HCWs and laboratory workers that become infected with these novel agents have been occupationally-exposed rather than exposed in the community.  Examples of such outbreaks are listed below.
   * Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)  -  Primary transmission route is droplet: Occupational exposure to SARS at a hospital in Toronto, Canada resulted in 42.5 percent of the HCWs who were exposed while performing their job duties becoming infected with the SARS virus (Ofner-Agostini et al., 2008).  As of the end of 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that, of the 8,096 SARS cases reported worldwide, 21 percent occurred in HCWs (WHO, 2004a).  Since the end of the SARS pandemic, the majority of reported SARS-CoV infections have occurred in laboratory workers, or individuals who had close contact with infected laboratory workers (WHO, 2003; WHO, 2004b; WHO, 2004c).  At least thirteen individuals (six laboratory workers and seven individuals who had contact with those workers) contracted laboratory-associated SARS-CoV infections after WHO declared the end of the SARS pandemic (Liang et al., 2004).
   * H1N1 pandemic influenza  -  Primary transmission route is droplet: Near the beginning of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, state health departments reported forty-eight cases of confirmed or probable cases of H1N1 infection in HCWs (CDC, 2009).  Early in the pandemic it was easier to identify the cases that were occupationally-related because there were not yet many cases in the community.  Of the 26 cases where the source of infection could be identified, CDC determined that 13 (50 percent) of the cases were occupationally-acquired.
   * Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)  -  Primary transmission route is not yet identified: WHO estimated that more than 25 percent (109/402) of individuals infected with MERS over a two-month period (April 11  -  June 9, 2014) were HCWs (WHO, 2014a). Although MERS does not appear to be readily transmitted from person-to-person, many of the cases among both patients and HCWs have been acquired in healthcare settings (Zumla and Hui, 2014). The two MERS cases that have occurred in the United States as of May 2014 were HCWs who were infected in other countries and subsequently traveled into and around the United States while symptomatic.  MERS testing done by Indiana and Florida Public Health Departments determined that 53 HCWs (Indiana) and 23 HCWs (Florida) who were exposed to the two infectious patients prior to implementation of isolation precautions were negative for MERS (CDC, 2014a; NBC, 2014a).
   * Ebola  -  Primary transmission is through direct contact with a sick person's blood or body fluids or materials that have been contaminated with Ebola virus.  WHO warns in an August 11, 2014 statement that "Ebola virus disease in West Africa continues to evolve in alarming ways, with no immediate end in sight," noting that 170 HCWs have been infected so far, with 80 of those HCWs dying (WHO, 2014b). Two HCWs from the U.S. who were infected in West Africa were transported back to the U.S. and were treated under high containment conditions and released (NBC, 2014b). Of high concern are people who do not know they are infected traveling into other countries via air travel. CDC has recently stated that it is possible that infectious diseases such as Ebola will spread to the U.S. due to the nature of global airline travel (Frieden, 2014) and outlines how U.S. hospitals should prepare for possible Ebola cases including the stringent precautions that should be used for suspected cases (Medscape.com, 2014).
While the patients who are the most ill with infectious diseases are most likely being treated in hospitals, there are several reasons why HCWs in ambulatory care settings are at particular risk of exposure to infectious diseases:
   * Many patients with infectious diseases are treated in ambulatory care settings during the early stages of the disease while they are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. Depending on the infectious agent's incubation period (i.e., the time between intitial infection and the first expression of symptoms) as well as the severity of the illness, people can be contagious for days, weeks or even longer without knowing that they have an infection that can be transmitted to others.
   * Primary care doctors and those in other ambulatory settings routinely see patients who may be colonized with infectious agents such as MRSA and Streptococcus.  Although these colonized patients are not necessarily infected with the agent, the agent can be transmited to providers.  The providers may then become colonized or infected.
   * An increasing number of patients who are ill and symptomatic with an infectious disease are getting initial treatment at clinics that have urgent care or immediate care services, rather than being treated at hospital emergency rooms.
   * Many patients with "childhood" illnesses such as measles, mumps and pertussis are being treated at clinics, not hospitals, unless they have severe cases. Currently, outbreaks of measles, mumps and pertussis are occurring in various countries, including the U.S.
While information on occupational exposures and infections in HCWs in ambulatory care settings is limited, data from outbreak investigations show that HCWs in these settings are exposed to infectious diseases. Examples of occupational exposure to infectious agents and HCW infections in ambulatory care settings include:
   * Soft tissue and skin infections (SSTIs)  -  A study of skin infections treated in U.S. physicians' offices between 1993 and 2005 estimates that there were 6.3 million SSTIs, including those caused by MRSA, diagnosed annually during this time period (Pallin et al., 2014).  Occupationally-acquired MRSA infections have been documented at ambulatory care settings including oncology, dental, and pediatric clinics, with a HCW fatality from MRSA at one pediatric clinic (Carpenter et al., 2008; Kassis et al., 2011; Roberts et al., 2011).
   * Norovirus gastroenteritis  -  Based upon information obtained from insurance claim databases, a modeling study estimated that over an eight year period from 2001-2009, norovirus contributed to approximately 400,000 Emergency Department visits and 1.7 million office visits annually. This study concluded that norovirus is a substantial cause of gastroenteritis-related visits to ambulatory care facilities.  (Gastanaduy, et al., 2013).
   * Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKV)  -  Outbreaks of highly contagious adenovirus eye infections in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and twelve outpatient clinics in four states were reported to CDC during 2008-2010. Of the 212 cases that were associated with the outpatient clinics, 10 were HCWs. (CDC, 2013).
   * TB  -  In a dental clinic in Washington state, a dental hygienist developed active TB and worked for several months while infectious, likely transmitting TB to a coworker and possibly also to several patients (Merte et al., 2014).
   * Pertussis  - A study of pediatric HCW exposure to and infection with pertussis showed that 1,193 confirmed HCW exposures were associated with 219 index cases, 7 of which were HCWs. The authors concluded that occupational exposures to pertussis occur frequently in pediatric healthcare settings (Kuncio et al., 2014).

Because HCWs are exposed to infectious diseases in a variety of settings, it is important for employers in all such settings to implement infection control practices.  Good infection control practices are laid out in a number of non-mandatory guidelines (e.g., CDC/HICPAC guidelines) and are recognized and generally accepted by the industry.  But evidence shows that many employers do not consistently adopt or rigorously enforce these guidelines, leaving both workers and patients at risk of contracting infectious diseases.  When these practices are consistently and rigorously followed, they have proven effective at preventing the spread of infections.  Some case examples are provided in Section C, below.  Due to the lack of consistent and rigorous enforcement of current guidelines, certain workers are not adequately protected against the risk of occupational acquisition of infectious diseases, and OSHA believes that covering those workers under a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework would reduce their risk.  The Agency believes that effective enforcement would result in more consistent and rigorous adherence to guidelines, and thus safer environments for both workers and patients.
As explained in Section II, Legal Basis for an OSHA Standard Addressing Occupational Exposure to Infectious Diseases, the Agency is required by statute to show that a rule is reasonably necessary and appropriate to provide a safe and healthful workplace.  This has been interpreted to require OSHA to make a finding of significant risk before it promulgates a new standard.  In evaluating significant risk, the Agency asks whether a reasonable person might regard the risk of harm to be significant and take steps to decrease or eliminate it.  OSHA can find significant risk based on reasoning well-accepted by leading public health authorities and supported by the available scientific evidence showing  that there is occupational exposure to broad categories of hazardous agents or work conditions that endanger workers in the absence of protections (e.g., Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratory Standard (55 Fed. Reg. 3300, 3302-06 (Jan. 31, 1990)), Hazard Communication Standard (59 Fed. Reg. 6126, 6131-32, 6136-40 (Feb. 9, 1994); 48 Fed. Reg. 53280, 53320-21 (Nov. 25, 1983)), Personal Protective Equipment Standard (59 Fed. Reg. 16334, 16335 (Apr. 6, 1994))).  Below is a summary of the evidence showing that: (A) There is a well-recognized risk to workers associated with exposure to infectious agents during the provision of direct patient care and/or performance of other covered tasks; (B) Current infection control guidelines are non-mandatory, are not consistently and rigorously followed, and therefore are not sufficient to adequately reduce the risk of transmission of infectious agents to workers who provide direct patient care and/or perform other covered tasks; and (C) Following recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices considerably reduces the risk of transmission of infectious agents to workers providing direct patient care and/or performing other covered tasks.
OSHA plans to rely in part on study data documenting the occurrence of occupationally-acquired infectious disease among health care workers in work settings where the incidence of disease has been adequately investigated.  The Agency is continuing to analyze the available information and has not yet made any final determinations regarding risk; OSHA is interested in feedback from small entity representatives on the evidence presented below.
   (A) There is a well-recognized risk to workers associated with exposure to infectious agents during the provision of direct patient care and/or performance of other covered tasks.

The risk associated with exposure to infectious agents during the provision of direct patient care and performance of other covered tasks has been known and documented for some time.  Occupational risks are documented and discussed in guidelines of the CDC's HICPAC, a federal advisory committee that provides advice and guidance to the CDC on the practice of healthcare infection control in U.S. healthcare facilities.  CDC/HICPAC's 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings (Siegel et al., 2007) and Guideline for Infection Control in Health Care Personnel, 1998 (Bolyard et al., 1998) both highlight the risks to workers from exposure to infectious agents  In its 1998 guidelines, the CDC/HICPAC wrote that its guidance for mitigating infectious disease risks applied to all workers in healthcare settings who have the "potential for exposure to infectious materials, including body substances, contaminated medical supplies and equipment, contaminated environmental surfaces, or contaminated air," and that these workers:
      may include but are not limited to emergency medical service personnel, dental personnel, laboratory personnel, autopsy personnel, nurses, nursing assistants, physicians, technicians, therapists, pharmacists, students and trainees, contractual staff not employed by the health care facility, and persons not directly involved in patient care but potentially exposed to infectious agents (e.g., clerical, dietary, housekeeping, maintenance, and volunteer personnel).
The two CDC/HICPAC guidelines support the existence of risks associated with occupational exposure to infectious agents and infectious agent transmission from patient to worker, worker to patient, and worker to worker.  The guidelines recommend appropriate precautions to prevent such exposure and transmissions and the resulting diseases.  The Joint Commission (TJC), recognizing the link between patient safety and healthcare worker safety, recently issued a 171-page monograph entitled, Improving Patient and Worker Safety: Opportunities for Synergy, Collaboration and Innovation (TJC, 2012).  TJC's monograph notes that HCWs experience some of the highest rates of nonfatal occupational illness and injury -- exceeding even construction and manufacturing industries. The monograph outlines how integration of patient and worker safety initiatives results in both improved patient outcomes and worker protection.
OSHA believes that the 1998 and 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines, along with other authoritative guidance documents (e.g., CDC/NIH, 2009), and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications (some of which are cited in this document), demonstrate a well-recognized risk of occupational exposure to infectious agents for workers providing direct patient care and/or performing other covered tasks.
These workers include physicians, nurses, emergency medical technicians, transport personnel, phlebotomists, and other patient-care staff that routinely have hands-on and face-to-face contact (i.e., direct patient care) with infected patients in facilities such as hospitals, urgent care clinics, physicians' offices (e.g., general practitioners/pediatricians), school infirmaries, and workplace occupational health clinics where sick or injured workers go for treatment (Siegel et al., 2007: section I.D).  Healthcare workers are also at risk in less traditional healthcare settings where exposures to infectious agents are likely to occur (Siegel et al., 2007; section I.D.2).  These settings include: home care settings where services are provided to patients often too ill to seek treatment outside of the home (Siegel et al., 2007; section I.D.2.c); nursing homes and other extended-care facilities where infections are common due to the long-term care of an elderly infirm population (Siegel et al., 2007; section I.D.2.a); and outpatient surgical, infusion treatment, and dialysis centers where the procedures employed pose increased opportunity for the spread of infectious agents (Siegel et al., 2007; section I.D.2.b).  Healthcare workers in these ambulatory care and long-term care facilities are likely to be using invasive devices and equipment, such as catheters, vascular lines, and breathing and feeding tubes, that can facilitate the transmission of infectious disease.
As individuals harboring infectious agents may infect others while they are asymptomatic, the 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines express a concern about HCWs being exposed to infectious diseases even when they provide direct patient care to patients not known to be infectious (Siegel et al., 2007: section I.D).  These occupational exposures can occur in professions that routinely engage in hands-on and face-to-face contact with patients, such as dentistry, ophthalmology/optometry, physical therapy, podiatry, and radiography. The risk to workers in settings that provide direct patient care may vary depending on frequency, duration and intensity of contact with the infected individuals.  For example, a nurse that has frequent, intense contact with infected patients in a hospital or nursing home may be at relatively greater risk of contracting an infectious disease than a dental hygienist or optometrist who likely interacts with fewer infected patients.
In addition to concerns about the risk of occupational exposure to infectious diseases when workers provide direct patient care, the CDC and NIH recognize the risk of occupational exposure to infectious disease in biomedical and research laboratories that handle infectious agents (CDC/NIH, 2009).  Likewise, laboratory and animal workers are at risk of occupational exposure to infectious agents in production laboratories that are engaged in the development and testing of vaccines against infectious agents and treatments for infectious diseases. Technicians that collect and process specimens contaminated with infectious agents in a clinical laboratory are also at risk of disease.   Workers in death care settings (e.g., medical examiner's offices, morgues, and mortuaries) are routinely exposed to tissues and body parts that may be contaminated with infectious agents.  In addition, workers that provide environmental services in hospitals and long-term health care facilities, such as laundry, housekeeping, and waste handling (i.e. "other covered tasks" under the regulatory framework) may also come in contact with surfaces and other materials contaminated with infectious agents.  Finally, workers involved in cleaning, repairing, and maintaining contaminated medical equipment are also at risk of occupational exposure to infectious agents.
The major goal of infection control is to prevent transmission of infectious diseases to patients and HCWs.  This fundamental approach is set forth in the CDC/HICPAC guidelines (e.g., Bolyard et al., 1998; Siegel et al., 2007), which are comprehensive guidelines for infection prevention and control that are recognized both nationally and internationally.  The guidelines address:  the identification and isolation of infectious cases; immunizations for vaccine-preventable diseases; standard and transmission-based precautions; training; personal protective equipment (PPE); the management of HCWs' risk of exposure to infected persons, including post-exposure prophylaxis; and work restrictions for exposed or infected healthcare personnel.
The CDC/HICPAC guidelines for standard and transmission-based precautions are widely recognized by experts in the field of occupational safety and health, generally accepted, often cited as an efficient means to address infectious agent hazards, and directly applicable to the prevention of occupationally-acquired infections.  In 2007, the CDC/HICPAC updated and modified its 1996 guidelines (Garner, 1996), in part, to accommodate changes in the healthcare industry, e.g., to specifically target the growing shift of healthcare delivery from primarily acute care hospitals to other diverse healthcare settings, including home care and ambulatory care settings, and to address the need for recommendations that could be applied to all healthcare settings (Siegel et al., 2007).  Thus, OSHA has reason to believe that these guidelines are directly applicable, or readily adaptable, to the direct patient care and associated tasks that are addressed in the regulatory framework (also see prior discussion on the applicability of the CDC/HICPAC guidelines).
OSHA believes that the majority of employers that would be subject to a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework are familiar with, and have adopted at some level, infection control programs that are generally consistent with the CDC/HICPAC guidelines.  OSHA also finds that a large number of employers with workers performing other covered tasks, as that term is defined in the regulatory framework (for example, maintenance and housekeeping in healthcare settings), operate in facilities that have some level of infection control in order to meet professional association or other accreditation requirements.  OSHA has compiled additional infection control guidelines and regulations, including guidelines that apply to settings, such as mortuaries and laboratories, in which only other covered tasks are performed.  A list of the guidelines and regulations OSHA has compiled and analyzed is contained in Appendix B to this SER Background Document.  OSHA would be interested in hearing from small entity representatives regarding any additional guidelines or regulations they believe the Agency should consider.
   (B) Current infection control guidelines are non-mandatory, are not consistently and rigorously followed, and therefore are not sufficient to adequately reduce the risk of transmission of infectious agents to workers who provide direct patient care and/or perform other covered tasks.
Some stakeholders asserted, in response to OSHA's RFI, that adequate worker protection is achieved through adherence to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations.  CMS regulations condition a provider's participation in Medicare or Medicaid on the provider's implementation of an infection control program.  CMS regulations only cover providers that accept or collect payments from Medicare or Medicaid.  CMS requires a certification, which involves an inspection covering infection control procedures as they affect patient safety for settings such as hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, hospices and some ambulatory care facilities such as rural health care clinics and ambulatory surgery centers.  However, most physicians' offices and many kinds of clinics are not subject to CMS accreditation requirements.  Additionally, healthcare providers need not, and some healthcare providers do not, accept Medicare and/or Medicaid. Furthermore, CMS regulations do not cover some workplaces, particularly workplaces where other covered tasks (but not direct patient care) are performed (e.g., medical equipment reprocessing facilities and research and production laboratory facilities).
In addition, OSHA has in place, enforcement mechanisms that CMS does not have and that would work in concert with CMS to achieve an even greater level of compliance.  Compliance with the CMS regulations is generally validated through periodic accreditation surveys of facilities by CMS-approved accreditation organizations, including TJC, state survey agencies, and other accrediting organizations (e.g., Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC)).

Evidence OSHA has examined thus far indicates that, notwithstanding the CMS regulations, many employers receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding are not fully conforming to nationally recognized infection control practices and guidelines.  OSHA has, at its disposal, enforcement mechanisms that CMS does not have.  For example, OSHA can respond to complaints, conduct random unannounced inspections, and conduct worksite inspections in response to complaints filed by workers.  OSHA believes that the failure of employers to routinely and rigorously comply with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices can be ameliorated through a joint effort between OSHA and CMS.  CMS has been validating compliance through periodic accreditation surveys alongside OSHA's enforcement of its existing Bloodborne Pathogens standard for over twenty years.  This has led to significant declines in bloodborne diseases among healthcare workers.  OSHA believes that a similar joint effort with CMS focused on protecting workers from exposure to infectious agents transmitted by routes other than the bloodborne route would also be successful in improving infection control practices and providing additional protection to workers.

The lack of compliance with recommended infection control procedures has been recognized by the CDC, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the WHO, and has been documented in numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications.  For example, when discussing HCW adherence to infection control guidelines in its 2007 guidance, CDC/HICPAC found (Siegel et al., 2007, pages 45-46):
      Adherence to recommended infection control practices decreases transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings.  However, several observational studies have shown limited adherence to recommended practices by healthcare personnel.  Observed adherence to universal precautions ranged from 43% to 89%.  However, the degree of adherence depended frequently on the practice that was assessed and, for glove use, the circumstance in which they were used.  Appropriate glove use has ranged from a low of 15% to a high of 82%...Differences in observed adherence have been reported among occupational groups in the same healthcare facility and between experienced and non-experienced professionals.  In surveys of health care personnel, self-reported adherence was generally higher than that reported in observational studies.  Furthermore, where an observational component was included with a self-reported survey, self-perceived adherence was often greater than observed adherence.  Among nurses and physicians, increasing years of experience is a negative predictor of adherence.

OSHA has found ample evidence of non-compliance with recommended guidelines in a number of areas including: hand hygiene, respiratory protective measures, hazard analyses, and appropriate laboratory infection control practices.  The Agency details its findings below.

Hand Hygiene

Perhaps the most basic, and important, element of infection control is proper hand hygiene.  Nonetheless, consistent and rigorous adherence to such a practice has been a challenge since Ignaz Semmelweis first identified its importance in 1847 (Semmelweis, 1861).  There is ample guidance on the subject, most recently the 2009 WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care (WHO, 2009).  This guidance document provides HCWs, hospital administrators and health authorities with a thorough review of evidence on hand hygiene in healthcare and specific recommendations to improve practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and workers in healthcare settings.  Chou et al. (2010) emphasized that despite the fact that hand hygiene is the best method of preventing transmission of infections in health care, compliance is usually suboptimal.  Likewise, Allegranzi & Pittet (2009) published an extensive literature review that documents the widespread lack of compliance with proper hand hygiene procedures.  In 2009, Turnberg et al. also published a study that surveyed nurses and doctors from five medical facilities, documenting the lack of compliance with both hand hygiene and respiratory protection guidelines.  The study found that only 33 percent of 156 doctors, and only 43 percent of 266 nurses, reported practicing five recommended hand hygiene measures.
Respiratory Protective Measures
Turnberg et al. (2008) reported significant gaps in adherence to recommendations for the control of respiratory infections in a study that surveyed 630 workers (187 medical practitioners; 277 nurses and nurse aides; 82 allied professionals; and 84 administrative staff) at five medical centers in 2005.  The study found shortcomings in overall personal and institutional use of CDC recommended practices, including the failure to comply with posted signs and with patient masking and separation, hand hygiene, and PPE practices.  That study also identified deficiencies in staff training and written procedures.  And in the same 2009 Turnberg et al. study referenced in the paragraph above, the authors found that only 8 percent of 177 doctors, and only 25 percent of 249 nurses, reported using recommended respiratory protection.
The IOM noted the lack of compliance with recommended infection control practices in its report on respiratory protective measures for HCWs exposed to pandemic influenza (IOM, 2009).  The IOM concluded that:
      [A]lthough workers are aware of expert guidance and the risk they face, they often do not wear PPE when faced with conditions requiring its use.  Such noncompliance is also seen in low rates of hand hygiene and use of gloves, respirators, and eye protection.  To improve the compliance rates and thereby improve worker protection, a "culture of safety" for workers must be established in all healthcare organizations evidenced by senior leadership commitment.
Hazard Evaluations
Studies also indicate that many employers are not engaging in appropriate infectious agent hazard evaluations.  Examples of occupationally-acquired infectious diseases resulting from inadequate infectious agent hazard evaluations include the following:
   * Bacterial meningitis: A report published in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) outlined the occupational transmission of Neisseria meningitidis to a police officer and a respiratory therapist in the course of their job duties (CDC, 2010a). The hospital emergency room personnel did not diagnose the patient with suspected meningococcal disease.
   * Cowpox virus infection: The first known human case of laboratory-acquired cowpox virus infection recently occurred in the United States.  Determination of the causative agent and the application of proper control and remediation measures were delayed because of an incomplete initial patient history that excluded the patient's occupation (McCollum et al., 2012).

These incidents are examples of many in the literature that underscore that HCWs must conduct a thorough infectious agent hazard evaluation.  Infectious diseases are commonly not diagnosed definitively until after HCWs have been exposed. Performing thorough hazard evaluations improve the likelihood that the appropriate infection control procedures will be implemented for a particular infectious disease, even before the exact diagnosis has been made.
Laboratory-Acquired Infections (LAIs)
Lack of adherence to infection control measures is not limited to HCWs engaged in direct patient care (Harding and Byers, 2006).  The failure to consistently use proper PPE, working with cultures outside of biological safety cabinets, and allowing unvaccinated workers to handle highly infectious materials have all led to illnesses among laboratory workers.  Examples of LAIs include:
   * Brucellosis: In 2006, two laboratory workers in two separate laboratories became ill with brucellosis after working with specimens at their workplaces (CDC, 2008).
   * MRSA infections: Two laboratory-acquired infections of MRSA were reported in laboratory workers in a European laboratory (Gosbell et al., 2003).

In some cases, the failure to follow infection control measures has even led to the deaths of laboratory workers.  Examples of fatalities resulting from a lack of worker compliance with appropriate precautions include:
   * Bacterial meningitis: CDC's MMWR reported a number of cases of transmission of Neisseria meningitidis to laboratory workers from patient samples, resulting in a fatality rate of 50 percent in the 16 cases cited (CDC, 2002a).  After concluding its investigation into the death of a research laboratory worker from a meningitis infection, OSHA issued a notice of unsafe and unhealthful working conditions to the medical center that employed the laboratory worker (OSHA, 2013a).
   * Plague: Attenuated Yersinia pestis infected and killed a 60-year old laboratory worker who wasn't following proper infection control practices (CDC, 2011a).

   (C) Following recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices considerably reduces the risk of transmission of infectious agents to workers providing direct patient care and/or performing other covered tasks.

The CDC/HICPAC guidelines describe an approach to mitigating the risk from infectious agents through the use of a comprehensive infection control program employing standard and transmission-based precautions.  CDC/HICPAC (Siegel et al., 2007) concluded that "adherence to recommended infection control practices decreases transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings."  OSHA believes that the guidelines provide both compelling and ample evidence to support the efficacy of such an approach.

The peer-reviewed literature is replete with studies of outbreaks of infectious diseases, often in hospitals or long term care facilities.  In these studies, facilities that experienced an outbreak took corrective action by rigorously following recommended standard and transmission-based precautions.  Once these precautions were implemented, studies showed that the risk and incidence of transmission was considerably lowered.  Examples of successful reduction and/or elimination of infection risks by taking corrective actions include:

   * Clostridium difficile infection: Post-discharge and daily disinfection of inpatient rooms using bleach wipes was associated with a reduction in the incidence of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile in patients on two hospital units (Orenstein et al., 2011).
   * Norovirus: Poor cleaning techniques and delayed diagnoses of norovirus-infected patients resulted in increased transmission in a long-term care facility (Wu et al., 2005).  Implementation of the following infection control practices eliminated the spread of norovirus within the facility: surveillance of patients; furloughing of infected workers; adherence of HCWs to contact precautions; proper use of PPE; hand hygiene; and extensive cleaning and decontamination.
   * SARS: A SARS outbreak in one hospital in Hong Kong was stopped by implementing airborne and contact precautions, as well as programs for the early recognition, prompt isolation and appropriate treatment of infected individuals (Lee et al., 2003).
   * VRE: Improved post-discharge and daily cleaning in a medical ICU reduced vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) contamination of the environment and HCWs' hands, and reduced VRE cross-transmission (Hayden et al., 2006).

It should be noted that the literature often does not conclusively tie the origin of the outbreak in question to a facility's failure to routinely and rigorously follow recommended infection control practices.  It is difficult to definitively prove causation in individual studies, which may have size or other limitations.  Yet, there are many studies that conclude that outbreaks frequently arise in situations where some recommended infection control practice(s) are not being used, and demonstrate that the outbreaks end after more rigorous implementation of those missing practices.  For this reason, OSHA believes that the evidence supports the position that many outbreaks can be prevented or minimized with correct infection control practices.
Reduced Risks to Patients Translates to Reduced Risks to HCWs
Several of the studies cited in this section found that following recommended infection control practices decreased risk to patients, without explicitly mentioning the decreased risk to HCWs.  Recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices, such as administrative controls, work practice controls, engineering controls, and PPE, are, by their very nature, designed to decrease the risk of transmission of infectious diseases.  It is a reasonable inference that study conclusions demonstrating risk reduction when recommended infection control practices are fully implemented apply equally to all individuals, whether they are patients, HCWs, or other workers that would be covered by a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework.
The Joint Commission published a monograph in 2012 entitled "Improving Patient and Worker Safety-Opportunities for Synergy, Collaboration and Innovation."  The monograph was designed to "bridge safety-related concepts and topics that are often singled out within the specific disciplines of patient safety/quality improvement and occupational health and safety." By citing case studies that demonstrate hazards that affect patients, it emphasizes that these same hazards may also affect workers. It also states that "safety must include both patient and worker safety simultaneously, since staff working conditions are related to patient safety as well as occupational safety."

OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens Standard Reduces Risk to HCWs for Diseases Caused by Bloodborne Pathogens

Based in part on OSHA's experience with the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030), OSHA believes that mandatory requirements and OSHA oversight will substantially reduce the risk of infectious diseases for affected workers.  The Agency's past experience with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) showed that, even though recommendations for control of these agents were previously in existence, promulgation of the Agency's Bloodborne Pathogens standard significantly improved worker safety and health.  Surveillance data by Mahoney et al. (1997) documented a dramatic decline in the incidence of hepatitis B infections among HCWs, explaining that "[t]he decline in incidence of HBV infection since 1990 may be related to publication of the blood-borne pathogens standard by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (sic) and the increase in vaccination coverage attributable to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (sic)."  Similarly, the CDC reported that, while there have been a total of 57 documented cases of occupational HIV transmission to HCWs in the United States, no confirmed cases have been reported since 1999 (CDC, 2011b).  While this 12-year absence of confirmed occupational transmission cannot be completely attributed to promulgation of the Bloodborne Pathogens standard, the standard likely played a key role in preventing HIV infections in HCWs.

Recent analysis of the sharps safety provisions of the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (as mandated by the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act (NSPA) - Pub. L. 106-430) by the International Healthcare Worker Safety Center at the University of Virginia found the provisions highly effective (Phillips et al., 2012).  They found that there was a trend toward increasing rates of injuries before the legislation was enacted, which was followed by a drop of about 38 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 35 to 41 percent) in 2001, after the NSPA took effect.  Subsequent injury rates, through 2005, remained well below pre-NSPA rates.  Phillips et al. concluded that the revisions to the Bloodborne Pathogens standard contributed to the decline in percutaneous injuries among U.S. hospital workers, and support the concept that well-crafted standards supported by effective enforcement can result in a safer work environment and workforce.

Therefore, OSHA believes that the current non-mandatory approach to assuring appropriate implementation of infection control guidelines is not sufficient to adequately protect workers with occupational exposure to infectious diseases and that a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework is necessary to compel employers to follow recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices.

Section IV.  Description of the Important Components in the Regulatory framework

Introduction
OSHA presents, in its regulatory framework, a potential programmatic approach to the protection of workers from occupational exposure to infectious diseases.  The regulatory framework represents, in its entirety, OSHA's preferred alternative.  The elements in the regulatory framework do not represent a list of provisions that OSHA may or may not include but instead represent all of the provisions the Agency believes, at this point, would constitute the best, most protective rule while providing the most flexibility and minimizing the burden on affected entities.  While this framework represents OSHA's initial thinking, the Agency is still considering a number of alternatives and options (see Section VIII of this SER Background Document) and is open to considering additional alternatives or options that the SERs may present.  OSHA welcomes feedback on all of the elements included in the regulatory framework.
The approach laid out in the regulatory framework would require employers to implement recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices such as those outlined in CDC infection control guidelines, CMS regulations, and CDC/National Institutes of Health (NIH) Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories guidance.  A typical OSHA program standard affords employers substantial flexibility in determining the best way to tailor protective measures to their workplaces, and, like most program standards, OSHA would require, among other things:
   * an exposure determination;
   * a written exposure control plan (referred to as a worker infection control plan (WICP) in the regulatory framework);
   * methods of compliance (e.g., engineering, administrative, and work practice controls, and PPE);
   * medical screening, surveillance, and vaccinations;
   * employee training; and
   * recordkeeping.
Numerous studies (see Section III of this SER Background Document) find that fully implemented infection control plans are effective at reducing transmission of infectious agents and illnesses in both patients and workers.  OSHA believes that many employers of workers with occupational exposure to infectious agents already have some (if not most) infection control plan elements in place and that the remainder usually have at least some familiarity with the elements introduced in the regulatory framework.
Moreover, responses to OSHA's RFI on infectious diseases (75 FR 24835, May 6, 2010) and early site visits to healthcare facilities suggest that even very small employers can, and often do, implement infection control plan elements, and that small employers could successfully apply the programmatic elements in the regulatory framework.  Thus, for many small employers, complying with a rule like the regulatory framework could simply involve:
         *       Evaluating their current written plan for completeness and adding missing elements;
         *       Identifying improvements needed in the implementation of their written plan and ensuring the elements of the plan are fully and rigorously followed;
         *       Verifying that employee health provisions, including vaccinations, are implemented and up-to-date; and
         *       Modifying their existing infection control training materials and using these modified materials to train employees in any areas where deficiencies in the existing program or in the implementation of the existing program have been identified.
There are at least two factors that could minimize the burden of compliance with a rule like the regulatory framework on some employers.  First, all employers with employees who have occupational exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials (as defined in the Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP) standard, 29 CFR 1910.1030) must already adhere to the BBP standard.  These employers include most of the employers that would also be covered by a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework.  Therefore, these employers should already be adhering to many of the types of practices that would be required by a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework to the extent these types of practices are already required by the BBP standard.  For example, the BBP standard requires precautions such as hand hygiene, decontamination, exposure incident investigations, and hazard signage and labeling, which are also part of Standard Precautions. According to the regulatory framework, Standard Precautions are the "minimum infection control practices that apply to all direct patient care, regardless of suspected or confirmed infection status of the patient, in any setting where healthcare is provided." In addition to Standard Precautions, in some cases, transmission-based precautions would need to be implemented based on the hazard evaluation(s).
Second, OSHA wants to stress that each employer covered by the regulatory framework would only be tasked with developing and implementing a Worker Infection Control Plan (WICP) that is tailored to their specific work setting.  The complexity of the WICP would largely be dictated by the size of the setting as well as the diversity and nature of job duties performed in that setting.  For example, a larger setting such as a hospital would necessarily have a more complex WICP than a small setting such as a physician's or dentist's office.
For ambulatory care settings, the 2011 outpatient settings checklist (CDC, 2011f) demonstrates that most of the precautions that are recommended fall under Standard Precautions with transmission-based precautions implemented as needed. The next section explains why WICPs are not and cannot be "One Size Fits All".
Infection Control Plans (Including WICPs That Would be Required Under An OSHA Rule) Are Not and Cannot Be "One Size Fits All"
The basic elements of infection control practices for healthcare and related settings are laid out in the 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidance document and other guidance documents (e.g., BMBL and the NIH Guidelines for laboratories).  Not surprisingly, the guidance documents recommend similar basic practices (e.g., hand hygiene, decontamination of infected materials and surfaces) for different settings.  However, how these infection control practices are implemented in different settings and under different conditions will be affected by a number of factors.
   * Sources and magnitude of worker exposure to infectious agents varies by setting.
         o          In settings that provide direct patient care, appropriate precautions should be in place to protect workers from exposure to patients known or suspected to be infected or colonized with disease agents.
         o          In all settings (including settings that provide direct patient care, morgues, laundries and laboratories), appropriate precautions should be in place to protect workers from exposure to infectious materials (e.g., contaminated materials and surfaces should be appropriately disinfected).
         o          In hospitals, nursing homes and laboratories, there are longer exposures to infectious patients/contaminated materials.
         o          In ambulatory care settings, worker exposures to infectious patients are frequently of shorter duration.
   * Characteristics of patient populations vary by setting.
         o          Immunocompromised patients, who are more susceptible to infectious diseases and are contagious for longer periods of time, are most likely to be seen in hospitals, nursing homes and specific types of ambulatory care settings (e.g., oncology clinics).
         o          More severely ill infectious patients are treated in hospitals.
         o          A greater number of infectious patients are seen in ambulatory care settings than in hospitals, though clinic patients frequently have mild or moderate symptoms.
   * Characteristics of infectious agent(s), which affect level(s) of worker exposure, vary by setting.
         o          The agent's route(s) of transmission will determine the types of precautions required (e.g., in settings that provide direct patient care, whether Standard Precautions are sufficient or transmission-based precautions (contact, droplet and/or airborne) will also need to be implemented).
   * The severity of the disease due to the virulence of the infectious agent(s) is different for different agents. Individuals who have exposure to an infectious agent(s) that causes severe disease (e.g., active TB) are more likely to be treated in a hospital than in an ambulatory care setting.
   * Types of infectious agents and diseases encountered vary by setting.
         o          In hospitals and nursing homes, pneumonia, caused by a number of different infectious agents, is often seen.
         o          In pediatric and family clinics, childhood infectious diseases such as mumps, measles, and pertussis are often seen.
         o          In research laboratories, many different types of infectious agents capable of causing many different types of diseases are handled.
The 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines (which focus on settings that provide direct patient care) take all these various factors into consideration and recommend different ways to implement infection control practices that are appropriate for different types of settings.  Examples of their recommendations (see pages 77-90 of the 2007 CDC/HICPAC guidelines) by setting, discussed below, include patient placement and patient transport using Standard Precautions versus transmission-based precautions.
Patient Placement - Standard Precautions
The potential for transmission of infectious agents should be considered when making patient-placement decisions. Place patients who pose a risk of transmission to others in a single-patient room, when available. Determine patient placement based on the following principles:
   * Route(s) of transmission of the known or suspected infectious agent
   * Risk factors for transmission from the infected patient
   * Risk factors for adverse outcomes resulting from a healthcare-acquired infection(s) in other patients in the area or room being considered for patient-placement
   * Availability of single-patient rooms
   * Patient options for room-sharing (e.g., cohorting patients with the same infection)

Patient Placement - Contact Precautions
Acute care hospitals
Place patients in a single-patient room, when available.  If single-patient rooms are in short supply, the following factors should be considered when making decisions on patient placement:
   * Prioritize patients with conditions that may facilitate transmission (e.g., uncontained drainage, stool incontinence) for single-patient room placement.
   * Place together in the same room (cohort) patients who are infected or colonized with the same infectious agent.
         *       Change protective attire and perform hand hygiene between contact with patients in the same room, regardless of whether one or both patients are on Contact Precautions.

Long-term care and other residential settings
Decisions regarding patient placement should be made on a case-by-case basis, balancing exposure to other patients in the room, the presence of factors that increase the likelihood of transmission, and the potential adverse psychological impact on the infected or colonized patient.
Ambulatory settings
Place patients in an examination room or cubicle as soon as possible.
Patient Placement - Droplet Precautions
Acute care hospitals
Place patients who require Droplet Precautions in a single-patient room when available.  When single-patient rooms are in short supply, apply the following principles for making decisions on patient placement:
   * Prioritize patients who have excessive cough and sputum production for single-patient room placement.
   * Place together in the same room (cohort) patients who are infected with the same infectious agent and are suitable roommates.
         *       Change protective attire and perform hand hygiene between contact with patients in the same room, regardless of whether one patient or both patients are on Droplet Precautions.

Long-term care and other residential settings

Make decisions regarding patient placement on a case-by-case basis after considering exposure to other patients in the room and available alternatives.
Ambulatory settings
Place patients who require Droplet Precautions in an examination room or cubicle as soon as possible. Instruct patients to follow recommendations for Respiratory Hygiene/Cough Etiquette (which are available at www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/resphygiene.htm).
Patient Placement - Airborne Precautions
Acute care hospitals and long-term care settings
Place patients who require Airborne Precautions in an AIIR that has been constructed in accordance with current AIIR guidelines.
   * When an AIIR is not available, transfer the patient to a facility that has an available AIIR.
   * In the event of an outbreak or exposure involving large numbers of patients who require Airborne Precautions:
         o          Consult infection control professionals before patient placement to determine the safety of alternative rooms that do not meet engineering requirements for an AIIR.
         o          Place together (cohort) patients who are presumed to have the same infection (based on clinical presentation and diagnosis when known) in areas of the facility that are away from other patients, especially patients who are at increased risk for infection (e.g., immunocompromised patients).
         o          Use temporary portable solutions (e.g., exhaust fan) to create a negative pressure environment in the converted area of the facility. Discharge air directly to the outside, away from people and air intakes, or direct all the air through HEPA filters before it is introduced to other air spaces.
Ambulatory settings
Develop systems (e.g., triage, signage) to identify patients with known or suspected infections that require Airborne Precautions upon entry into ambulatory settings.
   * Place the patient in an AIIR as soon as possible.
   * If an AIIR is not available, place a surgical mask on the patient and place him/her in an examination room. Once the patient leaves, the room should remain vacant for the appropriate time, generally one hour, to allow for a full exchange of air.
   * Instruct patients with a known or suspected airborne infection to wear a surgical mask and observe Respiratory Hygiene/Cough Etiquette.
   * Once in an AIIR, the mask may be removed; the mask should remain on if the patient is not in an AIIR.

Patient Transport  -  Standard Precautions
No special practices are recommended for transport of patients who are being handled under Standard Precautions.
Patient Transport - Contact Precautions
Acute care hospitals and long-term care and other residential settings
Limit transport and movement of patients outside of the room to medically-necessary purposes.
In any healthcare setting
When transport or movement is necessary,
   * Ensure that infected or colonized areas of the patient's body are contained and covered.
   * Remove and dispose of contaminated PPE and perform hand hygiene prior to transporting patients on Contact Precautions.
   * Don clean PPE to handle the patient at the transport destination.

Patient Transport - Droplet Precautions
Acute care hospitals and long-term care and other residential settings
Limit transport and movement of patients outside of the room to medically-necessary purposes.
In any healthcare setting
When transport or movement is necessary, instruct patient to wear a surgical mask and follow Respiratory Hygiene/Cough Etiquette.
Patient Transport - Airborne Precautions
Acute care hospitals and long-term care and other residential settings
Limit transport and movement of patients outside of the room to medically-necessary purposes.
When transport or movement outside an AIIR is necessary:
   * Instruct patients to wear a surgical mask, if possible, and observe Respiratory Hygiene/Cough Etiquette.
   * For patients with skin lesions associated with varicella or smallpox or draining skin lesions caused by M. tuberculosis, cover the affected areas to prevent aerosolization or contact with the infectious agent in skin lesions.

Laboratories

Diagnostic laboratory facilities (e.g., clinical laboratories), research laboratory facilities, and production laboratory facilities are unique work environments that may pose special infectious disease risks to persons in or near them.  Key documents that detail biological safety practices in laboratory facilities include: Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (CDC/NIH. 2009), NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH, 2013) and [CDC, 2012c]. The precautions in research and production laboratory facilities vary from those used in healthcare settings because laboratory workers are exposed to infectious materials rather than infectious patients. Workers in clinical laboratories can be exposed both to infectious materials and infectious patients. CDC/NIH recommends standard microbiological practices as well as practices for specific biosafety levels and disease agent-specific precautions (CDC/NIH. 2009),
One example of a difference between laboratory facilities and healthcare settings providing direct patient care is the type(s) of engineering controls used. Engineering controls recommended for laboratory facilities such as biosafety cabinets, laboratory hoods, and other laboratory design and containment measures are designed to protect the worker from exposure to infectious materials.  In contrast, the types of engineering controls (e.g., AIIRs in hospitals) used in healthcare settings are designed to protect workers from exposure to infectious patients and contaminated materials.

The remainder of this section provides a broad overview of the regulatory framework and highlights some of its major elements.
Scope
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require that an infectious diseases rule apply to employers within federal OSHA's jurisdiction and include firms engaged in general industry sectors.  If a rule is promulgated, states with OSHA-approved State Plans would be required to adopt an equivalent "at least as effective" standard covering both the private sector and state and local government workers, as applicable.
Because infectious agents pose serious hazards to workers performing many types of tasks, per the regulatory framework, an infectious diseases rule would generally cover any worker with occupational exposure when that worker performs certain tasks described in the regulatory framework.  An infectious diseases rule would not be limited to covering workers providing healthcare services only, or to covering specific workplaces or work settings only.  An employer's workplace would fall within the scope of an infectious diseases rule if:  (1) the employer's workers provide direct patient care (a term that is defined in the following paragraphs) or perform other covered tasks (a term that is also defined in detail in the following paragraphs); and (2) those workers have occupational exposure (i.e., exposure which is or should be reasonably anticipated to sources of infectious agents resulting from a worker's execution of job duties that involve the provision of direct patient care or the performance of other covered tasks).  OSHA notes that, under the regulatory framework, a worker would have "occupational exposure" even if that worker is subject only to the potential for being exposed to infectious agents during the performance of job duties that involve the provision of direct patient care or the performance of other covered tasks, so long as that potential is or should be reasonably anticipated.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would exclude occupational exposure as defined in OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030).
OSHA anticipates that employees working in settings to which the CDC/HICPAC guidelines apply (or to which guidelines for particular settings or medical specialties that are based upon the CDC/HICPAC guidelines apply), as well as employees working in other settings where there is occupational exposure, would fall within the scope of an infectious diseases rule.  The employer would be required to determine whether its workers are covered during its development of a written infection control plan (discussed in further detail later in this section).  Most small employers are used to working under guidelines and regulations that address infection control, such as those issued by CDC, NIH, CMS, and OSHA (e.g., the Bloodborne Pathogens standard).  (See Appendix B of this document for a partial list of guidelines and regulations currently in place that address infection control in a variety of settings).  As a result, the Agency does not believe that small employers would have difficulty determining whether their employees have occupational exposure during the provision of direct patient care or performance of other covered tasks.
The regulatory framework defines "direct patient care" as job duties that involve the provision of healthcare services with hands-on or face-to-face contact with patients, while acting under a license, certification, or registration to provide healthcare services within a legally permitted scope of practice, or while acting under the supervision of a licensed, certified, or registered employee.  Nurses, physicians, physical and occupational therapists, paramedics, and emergency responders are examples of the types of workers who perform direct patient care.  A pharmacist performing duties that involve hands-on contact with patients (e.g., administering vaccinations) is another example of a worker who performs direct patient care.  However, a worker who provides first aid only would not be considered to provide direct patient care for the purposes of the regulatory framework.  OSHA believes that general public health measures are adequate to protect workers who provide first aid only from the types of infectious agents covered by the regulatory framework, and that it would not be necessary to impose the burden of implementing and maintaining a comprehensive infection control plan for such workplace exposures.
Moreover, coming into hands-on or face-to-face contact with another individual would not necessarily constitute direct patient care.  Personal trainers at gyms and cosmetologists may have hands-on or face-to-face contact with other individuals, but they are outside of the scope of the regulatory framework, either because they are not licensed/certified/registered to provide healthcare services, or because they are not delivering healthcare services to patients.  OSHA believes, at this stage, that exposures in these types of settings are more properly addressed by general public health measures.
"Other covered tasks" is defined in the regulatory framework as job duties that do not involve direct patient care but still involve occupational exposure in settings where direct patient care is provided, or occupational exposure to contaminated materials originating from settings where direct patient care is provided or to human remains. In addition, other covered tasks involve occupational exposure to contaminated materials in diagnostic, research or production facilities.  Examples of other covered tasks would include: providing patient support services (e.g., triage reception, housekeeping, food services, facility maintenance); handling, transporting, receiving or processing contaminated materials (e.g., laundering healthcare linens, transporting medical specimens, disposing of medical waste, reprocessing medical equipment); maintaining, servicing or repairing contaminated medical equipment; conducting autopsies (e.g., in medical examiners' offices); performing mortuary services; manipulating and analyzing cultures, specimens, and human remains that may contain infectious agents in diagnostic, research and production facilities; and dispensing medications and/or medical supplies in settings where direct patient care is provided.
While the scope of the regulatory framework is defined by the types of job tasks performed in a facility, and not by the industry classification(s) of the facility, OSHA has identified a number of industries where direct patient care and/or other covered tasks could be performed.  OSHA has preliminarily estimated that direct patient care would be provided in, among other industries: hospitals; long-term care facilities and nursing homes; ambulatory care centers, including doctors' offices and dentists' offices; ambulatory surgical centers; medical clinics embedded in schools, correctional facilities, or industrial settings; home healthcare; and medical emergency delivery services (e.g., ambulances).  Other covered tasks could be performed in all of the previously mentioned industries where direct patient care is provided, plus, among other industries: diagnostic, research, and production laboratory facilities; morgues and mortuaries; laundry facilities that handle linens from healthcare settings; medical waste collection and disposal facilities; medical equipment reprocessing facilities; and durable medical equipment supply companies that rent reusable equipment such as hospital beds and wheelchairs.  Section V of this SER Background Document presents the industries that OSHA anticipates would likely be covered by an infectious diseases rule, and describes their characteristics, in more detail.
OSHA does not intend for the regulatory framework to cover veterinarians and veterinary technologists, technicians, or assistants, except when these workers perform duties defined as other covered tasks. For example, animal caregivers would be covered if they work in a research facility that handles infectious agents that can be transmitted to humans via contact, droplet or airborne route(s) or materials contaminated with such infectious agents.
Per the regulatory framework, an infectious diseases rule would not include in its scope certain job tasks, such as the tasks of prison guards and teachers, that are not other covered tasks.  In addition, there are certain job classifications, for example flight attendants, that would not be covered because workers in those classifications generally do not provide direct patient care or perform other covered tasks.  The tasks covered under the regulatory framework  -  unlike the typical duties of workers such as prison guards, teachers and flight attendants  -  would generally be subject to the standard and transmission-based precautions laid out in the CDC/HICPAC guidelines.  Although many of the programmatic elements of the regulatory framework are already in place for the tasks covered under the regulatory framework, this is not generally the case for the tasks of prison guards, teachers and flight attendants.  Note that under the regulatory framework, workers such as prison guards and teachers would be covered if they perform other covered tasks (e.g., a prison guard working in an embedded prison clinic).
OSHA is not suggesting that prison guards, teachers, and flight attendants not covered under the regulatory framework have no occupational exposure.  Rather, it is the Agency's belief that such exposures are more appropriately addressed through general public health approaches and OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens standard, rather than through the infection control measures envisaged in the regulatory framework. OSHA notes that it will continue to examine these job classifications carefully, and may explore ways to specifically address the infectious disease hazards associated with these job classifications in the future.
Under the regulatory framework, direct patient care is defined, in part, as job duties involving hands-on or face-to-face contact with patients. An exception to this definition states that pharmacists who provide hands-on care (e.g., administer vaccinations) provide direct patient care, while those who perform duties that involve face-to-face contact only (e.g., dispense medications) do not provide direct patient care. Pharmacists who are dispensing medications and/or medical supplies in settings where direct patient care is provided, however, are performing other covered tasks and therefore fall under the scope of the regulatory framework if they have occupational exposure.  OSHA believes, based on the evidence it has thus far analyzed, that general public health measures are adequate to protect pharmacists who neither provide direct patient care nor perform other covered tasks, as defined by the regulatory framework.
Per the regulatory framework, an infectious diseases rule would not apply to occupational exposures that are already covered by the Bloodborne Pathogens standard, 29 CFR 1910.1030.  All other forms of occupational exposure to infectious agents that are transmissible to humans would be covered by an infectious diseases rule. The Agency expects that many employers would likely develop a unified infection control plan that addresses both occupational exposures to bloodborne hazards and to other sources of infectious agents.
OSHA notes that, unless otherwise stated in the regulatory framework, covered employers would also have to comply with other applicable provisions in Part 1910, such as the Respiratory Protection standard (§1910.134), the Personal Protective Equipment standards (Subpart I); and the Specifications for Accident Prevention Signs and Tags standard (§1910.145).
Worker Infection Control Plan (WICP)
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require employers whose workers are within the scope of the regulatory framework to develop and implement a written worker infection control plan (WICP) designed to prevent or minimize the transmission of infectious agents to workers.  The written WICP is the foundation of the regulatory framework.  Because infection control must be practiced by everyone, it is imperative that workers are aware of and trained on the provisions in place in their workplaces. Having the WICP in written form is also essential to determine if the components of the plan have been implemented. OSHA believes that many employers of workers with occupational exposure have already developed WICPs for their workplaces and that these plans would fulfill most, if not all of, the requirements for a WICP, as specified under the regulatory framework.  However, employers could choose to modify current elements or develop additional elements for their current infection control programs to help them better manage their programs, and to demonstrate that they are implementing and maintaining all elements of their programs.
According to the regulatory framework, OSHA would require that the WICP contain an exposure determination; identifying information regarding the plan administrator and the person(s) responsible for the daily management of the WICP; and the standard operating procedures (SOPs) outlined in the regulatory framework (described in more detail in the discussion of Standard Operating Procedures Development and Implementation, below).  With respect to the exposure determination, OSHA would require that the employer compile a list of all job categories in the workplace where all or some of the employees have occupational exposure during the provision of direct patient care and/or performance of other covered tasks.  For example, in a hospital, an employer would include in its exposure determination job categories such as registered nurses, physicians, radiological technicians, and respiratory therapists, because some or all personnel in those categories have occupational exposure; a hospital probably would not include in its exposure determination job classifications such as accounting and HR, so long as no personnel in those categories have occupational exposure.  OSHA would require that the exposure determination be made without regard to the use of PPE for the following reasons.  1) Sometimes exposures occur to people who are not directly working with the hazardous material and may not routinely use PPE.  For these workers, part of the exposure determination process would involve assessing whether these workers should also use PPE and if so, what PPE would be appropriate; 2) In addition, several conditions must be met for PPE to effectively lessen exposures. The employee must be trained to use the PPE properly each time the task is performed, the PPE must fit properly and  be appropriate for the task and finally the PPE must be free of physical flaws that could compromise safety. If even one of these conditions is not fully met, protection cannot be assured. Therefore, all tasks that entail occupational exposure need to be included in the exposure determination, regardless of the PPE used, so that the workers who perform such tasks will be properly protected.  OSHA does not anticipate that the preparation of the exposure determination would be burdensome for most employers.
Because of the continual emergence of new research and technology related to the prevention of occupational illness due to infectious agents, OSHA would require that employers (with input from non-managerial workers with occupational exposure) review and update their WICPs at least annually, and whenever necessary to reflect changes in occupational exposure, and that employers establish and maintain records of the reviews.  These provisions would be similar to requirements in OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens standard (§§1910.1030(c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(v)).
Without such updates and reviews, there is a risk of the WICP becoming static and documented elements, such as SOPs, becoming out of date.  In most settings where workers are exposed to infectious agents, changes in technology, new or emerging infectious agents, changes in job tasks, procedures, and job classifications, and other changes occur markedly over time.  Each change in the work setting has the potential to create new occupational hazards that may need to be addressed and brought under control, or the potential to make one or more elements of the WICP outdated.  OSHA's intent is that each establishment's WICP be structured so that it can evolve and change to meet new circumstances and needs.  The Agency believes this would be assured by the WICP review process in the regulatory framework.  Further, providing workers with opportunities to participate in the implementation and evaluation of the WICP is critical to ensuring that the plan is successful and effective.  Involving workers allows employers to tap into the knowledge and insight that workers have about infectious agents, infection control practices, how work is conducted, and potential solutions to infection control issues.
Finally, per the regulatory framework, an infectious diseases rule would contain provisions that host employers (e.g., hospitals) would implement to protect their workers from infectious agent hazards.  Under such a rule, OSHA would require that the host employer require that contractors, vendors, and licensed independent practitioners with privileges, at a minimum, adhere to infection control practices consistent with the host employer's WICP.  OSHA would also generally require the host employer to ensure that its WICP is followed by each of its employees, even when instructions from a contractor, vendor or licensed independent practitioner with privileges are contrary to the host employer's WICP.  Under such a rule, the host employer would allow its employees to follow contrary instructions from a contractor, vendor or licensed independent practitioner with privileges if the host employer could show that not following the contrary instructions would be a greater hazard to a patient(s) or an employee(s), or that following the contrary instructions is consistent with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices.  In concert with these provisions, OSHA would require that host employers ensure that a copy of the WICP is provided and accessible to workers, contractors, vendors, and licensed independent practitioners with privileges.
Standard Operating Procedures Development and Implementation
Per Section 4 of the regulatory framework, OSHA would generally require employers having a worker(s) covered by an infectious diseases rule to develop, implement, and update written SOPs that are consistent with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices relevant to the occupational exposures encountered by employees during their job tasks.  To determine whether SOPs are consistent with such practices, OSHA would require that employers consider both applicable regulations, such as federal, state and local regulations, and current guidelines, such as those issued by the CDC, CDC/HICPAC, and NIH.  In the absence of such regulations and guidelines, OSHA would require that employers consider current guidance issued by professional organizations and accrediting bodies.  Moreover, OSHA would require that employers develop, implement, and update written SOPs that are consistent with applicable requirements in Part 1910 (e.g., requirements contained in 29 CFR 1910.134, and 29 CFR 1910 Subpart I); and, if a recognized and generally accepted good infection control practice conflicts with an applicable requirement in Part 1910, employers would need to incorporate into its SOPs, and implement, the Part 1910 requirement.
SOPs for all employers:  A rule based on the regulatory framework would require the SOPs for all employers in the scope of the regulatory framework to contain at least procedures for:
   * Infectious agent hazard evaluations;
   * Communication of hazard evaluation results;
   * Hand hygiene;
   * Food and cosmetics;
   * Engineering, administrative, and work practice controls and PPE;
   * Decontamination;
   * Handling, containerization, transport, or disposal of contaminated materials;
   * Occupational health services;
   * Exposure incidents;
   * Signage and labeling/color-coding; and
   * Notification of occupational exposure during transfer, transport, shipping, or receipt of sources of infectious agents.

Below, OSHA highlights some of the SOPs for all affected work settings covered under the regulatory framework.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures for the conduct of timely infectious agent hazard evaluations to promptly identify suspected or confirmed sources of infectious agents that are present in the work setting.  An effective hazard evaluation would anticipate a range of infectious agent hazards and appropriately link those hazards with standard and transmission-based precautions.  In a healthcare setting, such an evaluation might include an assessment of a patient's infectious status based upon symptoms reported at scheduling and intake/admittance and/or a healthcare provider's index of suspicion based upon the provider's interactions with the patient.  If the regulatory framework develops into a proposed rule, the Agency might include in that proposed rule a non-mandatory appendix that would explain how employers can conduct infectious agent hazard evaluations in different settings.  OSHA would not require the hazard evaluations to be written documents, but would permit the hazard evaluations to be incorporated into routine activities, such as triage, scheduling, intake, or a preliminary assessment by a healthcare worker.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures to ensure that handwashing facilities are available and accessible, and for following recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices for hand hygiene.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures for the use of engineering, administrative, and work practice controls, and would require the employer to establish and implement procedures for the provision and use of PPE (e.g. gloves, gowns, laboratory coats, protective eyewear, face shields, facemasks, and respirators).  OSHA would require that employers establish and implement SOPs in accordance with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices, and thereby tailor their SOPs to their specific work settings and to the specific risks typically encountered in their workplaces.  As such, OSHA notes in the regulatory framework that the Agency might permit adherence to the required hierarchy of controls, such as that required by 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1), to be modified in accordance with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices.  Thus, for example, OSHA would permit an employer not to use certain engineering controls (e.g., airborne infection isolation rooms (AIIRs)) if it is consistent with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices to use some combination of alternative engineering controls, administrative controls, work practice controls and PPE instead.
OSHA wrote the regulatory framework in this manner because OSHA recognizes that infection control practices normally rely upon a multi-layered and overlapping strategy of employing engineering, administrative, and work practice controls, as well as PPE.  Moreover, the regulatory framework is consistent with OSHA's understanding that most workplaces outside of hospitals do not have AIIRs.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures for regular examination of existing engineering controls, and for maintaining or replacing existing engineering controls to ensure that engineering controls function properly and, thus, provide protection to workers as intended.   OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures to prevent or minimize the generation of droplets or aerosols of infectious agents.

Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures for decontamination of contaminated materials (i.e., contaminated items and/or surfaces) and contaminated equipment.  The Agency chose not to specify particular disinfectants or procedures for decontamination under the regulatory framework, as OSHA would require SOPs that are consistent with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices relevant to their work setting.  OSHA also believes that specifying particular disinfectants and procedures could have the effect of limiting the use of new products and of discouraging the development of new information relative to adequate decontamination.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures to provide occupational health services, including screening, surveillance, vaccinations and vaccination regimens (e.g., doses, intervals), post-exposure treatment and follow-up, and medical removal protection, that are consistent with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices.  Such potential requirements are discussed later in this section of this SER Background Document.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures to investigate the circumstances surrounding each exposure incident, which is defined as a specific event in which a worker has been exposed to a suspected or confirmed source of an infectious agent(s), either without the benefit of the infection control practices that would be required by OSHA, or where the infection control practices that would be required by OSHA may not have adequately protected the worker from the exposure.  These procedures would involve determining the cause of the incident, and whether existing policies, procedures, or training need to be revised to prevent future exposure incidents.  For example, during an exposure incident investigation, a Physician or other Licensed Healthcare Professional (PLHCP) may conclude that a patient exposed a worker to a suspected or confirmed source of an infectious agent and that proper implementation of the employer's infection control practices may not have adequately protected the worker from the exposure.  The exposure incident investigation will assist the employer in revising its SOPs to more fully protect workers and will help the employer identify which workers may need to receive occupational health services (which, again, are discussed below).
Additional SOPs for Direct Patient Care:   Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require employers whose workers provide direct patient care to develop, implement, and update, in addition to the SOPs for all affected work settings, SOPs that contain at least procedures for:
   *    Patient scheduling and intake/admittance;
   *    Standard Precautions;
   *    Contact precautions;
   *    Droplet precautions;
   *    Airborne precautions;
   *    Patient transport;
   *    Medical surge procedures; and
   * Ensuring any other employee protection precautions necessary to address specific infectious diseases or circumstances.

Below, OSHA highlights some of the provisions in the regulatory framework addressing SOPs for employers whose workers provide direct patient care.
OSHA has concerns that workers exposed to airborne transmissible infectious diseases are not being adequately protected.  Therefore, the regulatory framework includes provisions for the development, implementation, and update of SOPs associated with airborne precautions.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require procedures for the temporary isolation and inter-facility transfer of an individual with a suspected or confirmed airborne-transmissible infectious disease if the employer's healthcare setting does not have an available AIIR.  OSHA recognizes that there are certain situations where transfer may not be appropriate and notes that transfer would not be required if: a transfer would be medically detrimental to the individual's health; it is not medically necessary for the individual to remain in the healthcare facility (e.g., it is appropriate to send the individual home); or an AIIR becomes available at the facility.
 Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require procedures for ensuring proper AIIR operation if the employer's healthcare setting has an AIIR, including procedures for ensuring that each AIIR, associated ducting, and filtration are constructed, operated, and maintained so that they maintain negative pressure, achieve sufficient air changes per hour, properly exhaust contaminated air, and function to prevent or minimize transmission of infectious agents, and for ensuring that, when in use, each AIIR is monitored daily for maintenance of negative pressure.  OSHA believes that these procedures would ensure that AIIRs function properly when they are needed.
As stated, the Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134) would generally apply to the use of respirators by workers performing tasks covered by a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework.  Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require employers to establish and implement procedures for workers to use respiratory protection: when entering areas, rooms, or homes where individuals have been isolated; when transporting individuals with suspected or confirmed infectious disease in an enclosed vehicle; during aerosol-generating procedures; during maintenance of air systems or equipment reasonably likely to contain airborne-transmissible infectious agents; and whenever the infectious agent hazard evaluation indicates that respiratory protection is necessary for worker protection.  OSHA would also require employers to establish and implement procedures to ensure that facemasks are not used to provide respiratory protection when the use of respirators is required under 29 CFR 1910.134.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require SOPs for any other worker protection precautions that are necessary to address specific infectious diseases or circumstances for direct patient care.  As explained earlier, OSHA would generally require employers having a worker(s) covered by a rule as outlined in the regulatory framework to develop, implement, and update SOPs that are consistent with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices relevant to their work setting.  Such a rule would thus be performance-based.  Nonetheless, OSHA chose to explicitly address some specific worker protection precautions in the regulatory framework because OSHA views these particular precautions as especially important for a good infection control program, and OSHA therefore wants to emphasize these precautions directly in the regulatory framework.  However, OSHA would require employers to establish and implement SOPs not specifically addressed in the regulatory framework to ensure that their infection control programs are consistent with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices relevant to their work settings.  Employers would generally be able to determine whether their SOPs are consistent with such practices by considering both applicable regulations, such as federal, state and local regulations, and current guidelines, such as those issued by the CDC, CDC/HICPAC, and NIH, and, in the absence of such regulations and guidelines, guidance issued by professional organizations and accrediting bodies.
Additional SOPs for Other Covered Tasks:   Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require employers whose workers perform other covered tasks to develop, implement, and update SOPs, in addition to the SOPs for all affected work settings, that, at a minimum, contain procedures for:
   * The handling and intake of contaminated materials;
   * The use of control measures necessary to prevent or minimize transmission of infectious agents;
   * Implementing, in diagnostic, research, and production facilities, standard microbiological practices and any special practices for handling infectious agent(s) of a specific biosafety level, in addition to the other procedures outlined for other covered tasks; and
   * Ensuring any other employee protection precautions necessary to address specific infectious diseases or circumstances.

Below, OSHA highlights some of the provisions in the regulatory framework addressing SOPs for employers whose workers perform other covered tasks.
Diagnostic laboratory facilities (e.g., clinical laboratories), research laboratory facilities, and production laboratory facilities are unique work environments that may pose special infectious disease risks to persons in or near them.  In fact, CDC/NIH publishes guidelines specifically for biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories (CDC/NIH, 2009).  In addition, NIH's Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH, 2013) includes guidance on safe handling of recombinant and synthetic infectious agents.  To ensure that workers in diagnostic, research, and production facilities are adequately protected, OSHA would require that employers of workers in these types of facilities include in their SOPs procedures for the implementation of standard microbiological practices and any special practices for handling infectious agent(s) of a specific biosafety level.
To this end, per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures to ensure the use of appropriate engineering controls (i.e. engineering controls that are necessary to ensure consistency with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices).  Appropriate engineering controls would include such controls as biosafety cabinets, laboratory hoods, and other laboratory design and containment measures.  Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would also require the employer to establish and implement procedures to ensure that these engineering controls are appropriately constructed, operated, and maintained (e.g., proper air flow, exhaust air filtration, double access doors, special design requirements for Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities).  Finally, OSHA would require the employer to establish and implement procedures necessary to address uncontrolled releases of infectious agents, including mitigation of such releases and prompt reporting of such incidents to appropriate authorities (e.g., federal, state, and local authorities).
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require SOPs for any other worker protection precautions that are necessary to address specific infectious diseases or circumstances for other covered tasks.  OSHA discussed the rationale for this provision earlier in this section of the SER Background Document when discussing the analogous provision for SOPs related to direct patient care.

Medical Screening, Surveillance, and Vaccination
Early intervention, through testing, appropriate prophylaxis, and vaccination of occupationally exposed workers, can reduce the risk of infection among workers and patients.  Moreover, since a single unprotected occupational exposure may result in an infection, post-exposure evaluation and follow-up after each exposure incident can mitigate the impact of the infection on the worker and can also help prevent additional infections of other workers and patients.   Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would require employers to make medical screening, surveillance, and vaccinations available to each worker who falls within the scope of an infectious diseases rule, and to promptly provide a confidential post-exposure medical evaluation and appropriate follow-up to each worker who has had an exposure incident.  In addition, OSHA would require the employer to make a confidential medical evaluation and appropriate follow-up available to each worker referred for such services following medical screening/surveillance.  Similar requirements can be found in other OSHA standards, such as the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (§1910.1030), the Lead standard (§1910.1025), and the Chromium (VI) standard (§1910.1026).
Below, OSHA highlights some of the provisions in Section 5 of the regulatory framework.
Per the regulatory framework, OSHA would set forth specific requirements for vaccinations.  Vaccination is generally considered an important component of an effective infection control program.  The regulatory framework explains that an employer would be required to make available vaccinations and associated vaccination regimens (e.g., doses, intervals) that are consistent with recognized and generally accepted good infection control practices relevant to the occupational exposures encountered during the job tasks of the employee.  The employer of a worker(s) in a research or production laboratory facility would be required to make available to that worker(s) any vaccinations specified in the employer's WICP, or determined by a PLHCP to be medically appropriate for a particular worker.  For all other workers who fall under the scope of an infectious diseases rule, OSHA would require the employer, at a minimum, to make the following vaccinations available to each worker:
   * Influenza (Seasonal and Pandemic);
   * Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR);
   * Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (Tdap);
   * Varicella; and
   * Any other vaccination(s) that is specified in the employer's WICP, or determined by a PLHCP to be medically appropriate for a particular worker.