Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Testing for blood-borne viruses after a needle-stick injury in patients who lack the capacity to consent

Rajeka Lazarus
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.17-4-376a
Clin Med August 2017
Rajeka Lazarus
Oxford University Hospital Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
Roles: Registrar in infectious diseases and microbiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

A conclusion that a person lacks decision making capacity is not an off-switch for his or her rights1

It is usual practice after a needle-stick injury for the source patient, with consent, to be tested for blood-borne viruses (BBV) to guide the need for HIV prophylaxis and to organise appropriate follow-up of the recipient. If the source patient cannot give consent and therefore is not tested then this uncertainty can heighten the injury-associated anxiety and result in unnecessary prophylaxis for the recipient. General Medical Council (GMC) guidance states that BBV testing for the sole benefit of a healthcare worker is unlawful and may only be performed if it is in the best interests of the patient.2 The GMC, however, does not clearly define the best interests of the patient in this scenario, so the British Medical Association (BMA) issued guidance in 2016 to fill this gap.3 This letter sets out to summarise the ethical arguments that underpin the BMA guidance, illustrate how this guidance could be put into practice and raise debate on this issue.

There are two main strands to the guidance, the first focuses on clinical best interest. It may be argued that for most individuals it is in their best interest to know whether they have a BBV as they are likely to benefit from current or future care of that infection. Often the question asked by the clinician at the time of such an incident is ‘will it influence current management’; however, the guidance encourages the clinician to think more broadly and holistically, which makes the question of the timeliness of testing redundant.

The second strand focuses on the broader best interest of an individual, which encompasses a much more person-centred approach. The limited evidence available suggests that only the minority of patients do not give consent for BBV testing when they do have capacity.4 So, why might an individual be tested primarily for the interests of another? There are several ethical imperatives that may explain such altruism and these include altruism in itself, reciprocity of care and recognition of the importance of the relationship between the patient and healthcare worker, for the greater good of all patients as all patients would benefit from the health professional being appropriately treated and being able to continue working and fulfilling the duties of the responsible citizen.

The guidance invites the user to construct a balance sheet of benefits and dis-benefits of testing, diligently following the steps listed in Box 1. In essence, the BMA guidance highlights that testing that benefits a third party and patient best interest are not mutually exclusive and that patients who lack capacity must not have their best interests neglected.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Box 1.

A guide to testing

Conflicts of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2017. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wye Valley NHS Trust v B [2015]EWCOP 60
    .
  2. ↵
    1. General Medical Council
    . Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. London: GMC, 2008.
  3. ↵
    1. British Medical Association
    . Needlestick injuries and blood-borne viruses: decisions about testing adults who lack the capacity to consent. London: BMA, 2016.
  4. ↵
    1. Giri P
    , Basu S, Adisesh A, Rimmer A. Blood and body fluid exposures: consent for source patient testing. Occup Med 2013;63:135–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Testing for blood-borne viruses after a needle-stick injury in patients who lack the capacity to consent
Rajeka Lazarus
Clinical Medicine Aug 2017, 17 (4) 376-377; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-4-376a

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Testing for blood-borne viruses after a needle-stick injury in patients who lack the capacity to consent
Rajeka Lazarus
Clinical Medicine Aug 2017, 17 (4) 376-377; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-4-376a
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Conflicts of interest
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Does ultrasound-guided peripheral cannulation training for junior doctors reduce missed intravenous antibiotics doses? A teaching programme for foundation doctors in an acute medical unit
  • Unexpected deaths following discharge of medical patients from hospital
  • Promoting electric vehicle uptake, a job for the NHS?
Show more Clinical and scientific letters

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians