[background]
My girlfriend is a leader / organiser in the Brownies, which she enjoys.
In order to take the girls away for a camping trip, she has to comply to many different rules and regulations (understandably), one of which is to ensure a well-stocked first-aid kit is available.
The kit has to include plastic gloves (non-sterile) which are to protect the leader in the event of a bleeding wound on a child.
[/background]
So, question is: what, typically, diseases could a 7-9 yo girl typically carry which may be dangerous to a leader in this instance? Can children carry Hep-A or B without experiencing symptoms?
I can understand paramedics wearing gloves when they know nothing of the victim and can protect against transmission of HIV etc… but what, other than a cold, can the gloves protect against in this case?
Thanks. for counteracting my ignorance once more…
I would hope that the first aid kit includes latex gloves.
Exactly the same range of diseases a paramedic might be exposed to via blood contact. The age of the children or the fact that they are Brownies doesn’t provide them with exempt them from contracting blood borne illnesses, or from transmitting them.
Universal precautions are called “universal” because they should be taken in any situation where one encounters a blood spill - without reference to gender, age, sexuality, religion or any other factor one might assume makes an individual more or less likely to be carrying a blood born disease.
The gloves are not those stretchy latex gloves (as seen on TV), but the flat plasticy ones used in food-prep. (Can you tell I’m an expert from the discription ;))
Specifically though, could you really expect a 7 yo child to be carrying dangerous diseases, or it really just considered good practice in any situation to wear gloves?
Guys treating sports injuries don’t seem to wear gloves when cleaning wounds, in soccer matches or boxing on TV.
Yes, it is indeed realistic to expect that a given portion of children will be carrying blood borne diseases. While the chances of contracting that disease through exposure to a blood spill is going to vary from disease to disease and will usually be quite low anyway, the reason why it is considered good practise to treat all blood spills as potentially infectious is because it’s dangerous to assume a negative. There are plenty of children out there who’ve contracted blood borne illnesses in utero, or through medical procedures carried out overseas.
Most sports these days have “blood rules”. Just because you haven’t see someone glove (which they are likely to have done before coming on the field; it takes only seconds), I wouldn’t assume that they haven’t done so. Some latex gloves are virtually invisible.
So all these kids who got HIV in the womb are non-infectious because they’re Scouts? You can carry all sorts of nasty crap and be asymptomatic for years. And yes, people can be carriers for a disease and not actually get sick themselves, ever.
It wasn’t my intention to suggest that their being in the Brownies was of any consequence to their ability to carry disease. It was meant only to be reflective of their age.
(I’m beginning to wish I’d not mentioned that part…)
Don’t pick on me just 'cause I don’t know much about blood diseases…That’s why I’m asking the question…
"So, question is: what, typically, diseases could a 7-9 yo girl typically carry which may be dangerous to a leader in this instance?
The main concerns are hepatitis B and HIV.
“Can children carry Hep-A or B without experiencing symptoms?”
Yes. In fact, most children with hep A and hep B do not have symptoms.
Although every single little Brownie in the troop could be both HIV positive and a hep B carrier, the chances depend on the population from which the girls are drawn. In the U.S., both HIV and hep B are rare among 7-9 year old girls in general and heavily concentrated among certain population groups and people with specific risk factors (see http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/surveillance.htm#Risk and http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/resource/pubs.htm). If the troop does not include anyone who is at increased risk because of the population group they come from or because of an individual risk factor, then the chances of getting a blood-borne disease from them is very small. Nevertheless, it is only prudent to use universal precautions because, as the ancient sage used to say, “you never know.”
BTW, according to this link (PDF) there are 55 children in Ireland who have been exposed to HIV.
Not sure about just in NI, but will be less than a quarter of these cases, no doubt.
Ok, there is still a risk, and prevention is better than (…no) cure.
Further question:
Are kids in the UK routinely vaccinated against Hep-A &/or B?
"They could carry Hep C also. Transmits a lot like HIV. "
HCV seems to be less readily transmitted by mothers to their children than HIV. In recent years in the U.S., almost all HCV has been transmitted through injecting drug use with sexual transmission accounting for some lesser percentage. I assume the situation is the same in the UK so unless these girls are shooting up or turning tricks, their chances of being infected with HCV are even lower than their chances of being HIV or HBV positive.
Hasn’t the health community started to shy away from latex gloves because of the potential of latex allergies? The last time I was in a hospital, there were signs that said that that hospital was “latex-free”. Their gloves were not food-prep gloves, though–they looked a lot like latex gloves, except that they were bright purple. I’m guessing that the food-prep gloves are a cheaper alternative, especially in such a low-risk group. IANAD.
Oh, and also–that first-aid kit might not just be used on the girls. One of the adult leaders could get hurt, or perhaps a complete stranger. Good idea to have those gloves handy.
The bright purple or blue gloves are made of nitrile, a synthetic polymer that is very strong and elastic. Food-handling gloves are usually vinyl, and are not suitable for working with blood. Good latex or nitrile gloves are the best choice for blood work, and they look very similar.
My take on this has to do with first aid kits, not blood diseases in young girls. Shouldn’t any first aid kit have standard items in it? What if somebody other than one of the little girls needs first aid? It’s just good sense to stock a kit with anything that might be needed in any reasonably expected first aid situation. You don’t leave eye wash out of a kit that’s used in a school for the blind (I know, bad example, but you know what I mean).
Paediatric wards - in particular - are using less latex. Paediatric patients (and in particular those with neural tube defects) have a higher rate of allergic reactions to latex and other natural rubber products than do adults.
I was reading a report last night which indicated that staff have a much higher rate of allergic reactions to latex than patients - the report suggested that repeated exposure is a key issue here. Powdered gloves seem to cause more problems than non-powdered.
Non-latex gloves are certainly the ideal, but I haven’t seen to many commercially packaged first aid kits which take into account the possibility of allergic reactions to rubber products. I suspect that anyone who has a life-threatening reaction to rubber products (I once saw a child have an anaphylactic reaction to the rubber on an asthma mask; fortunately, he was in hospital when it occured) isn’t likely to be going on a camping trip.
not necessarily for kids protection only… if your girlfriend had an open wound or dirty hands SHE could give something to the kid!
hands aren’t clean, gloves are.
if they are eg camping it might not be possible to keep hygiene up to the highest standards, and so gloving up can at least stop dirt, bacteria and so on from one set of hands contaminating a wound on a second set.
"Yeah, perinatal transmission of Hep C, while much less likely than HIV, still occurs in a significant number of cases. "
Qad, if you read my post I didn’t say it doesn’t happen. The point is that it is really rare as your own post indicates.
“Let’s not forget some things which are picked up rather easily-
meningitis-3 varieties-viral, bacterial, and high fiber”
You’re unlikely to affect the transmission of meningitis, either viral or bacterial, by wearing gloves.
"Rabies-Kids often play with strange or stray animals. They also have a habit of ignoring minor cuts or scratches. "
By the time a kid had enough rabies in their saliva to infect you, they’d almost certainly be in a hospital, not on a camping trip.
“IIRC there’s a variety of either chicken pox or measels which causes the standard itching etc in kids but is rather severe when caught by adults.”
You’re not likely to prevent measles transmission by wearing gloves.
I recommend “Control of Communicable Diseases Manual”
(17th Edition) Edited by James Chin, MD, MPH available from the American Public Health Association
Yeah- I’d just like to point out that despite the Doc, I am (quite clearly) not a medical doctor.
However, my string of errors has given me an idea-perhaps the gloves are included, at least partly, as a psychological measure. Gloves make people feel safer
