To the Editor: The article by Charles and colleagues1 is an interesting contribution to the development of Australian protocols for healthcare workers infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). To date, most European countries have no national policy for HCV-infected healthcare workers, and existing guidelines are advisory in nature and poorly enforced. A panel of European and American experts recently failed to reach consensus on management of HCV-infected healthcare workers who perform exposure-prone procedures, and concluded that screening for HCV infection and restricting infected healthcare workers is not justified, based on current published data.2

Today, the effectiveness of guidelines relies solely on self-assessment of HCV status from healthcare workers. However, collaboration of healthcare workers might be problematic if management criteria are not defined, and workers’ rights are not guaranteed. Issues such as practice restriction, disclosure of serological status to patients, privacy and discrimination need to be resolved. Given the risk of HCV transmission from healthcare workers to patients is not clear, the burden of uncertainty rests entirely with healthcare workers. Because of the fear of discrimination, needlestick injuries may be under-reported, and infected workers may not seek diagnosis and treatment because they have greater legal protection if they can honestly say that they did not know their serological status.3 Moreover, the largely asymptomatic nature of HCV infection may leave healthcare workers unaware of their infective status.

The results of Charles and colleagues suggest up to tenfold underreporting of occupational injuries with blood exposure in Australian healthcare workers.1 With this number of unreported exposures, there may be two or three new cases of HCV infection in healthcare workers in metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne each year — a figure similar to the prevalence of occupational HCV infection from notified injuries.

Paradoxically, the prevalence of HCV infection in healthcare workers and the transmission risk for patients cannot be assessed without compulsory testing of healthcare workers, but without risk assessment there is no reason for this compulsory testing. Overcoming this Catch-22 with well-targeted epidemiological studies may help create broad consensus about policies for HCV-infected workers.

In reply: Magnavita correctly points out the need for a national policy on the management of healthcare workers who are either infected with or occupationally exposed to hepatitis C virus (HCV).

Compulsory testing of healthcare workers is neither practical, logical nor fair in the current Australian healthcare environment. Firstly, most healthcare institutions do not currently have adequate staff health systems in place to ensure that staff are appropriately vaccinated against readily preventable diseases, such as hepatitis B, measles and varicella, let alone to test all staff for a disease such as hepatitis C, for which there is no vaccine. Secondly, awareness about important issues, such as healthcare worker transmission-risk assessment is embryonic (at best) in most institutions. The risk of HCV transmission from infected healthcare workers to their patients is generally considered to be extremely low, but probably depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the patient’s procedure and the healthcare worker’s injury and level of viraemia at the time. Simplistic legal opinions about such matters rarely help. Finally, we agree that the rights of healthcare workers are often neglected in this era of litigation-driven medicine. If these rights are not considered, and infected or exposed healthcare workers are simply excluded from all types of work without any appropriate risk assessment or compensation, then compliance with any form of postinjury testing is unlikely. However, rather than ignoring this important workplace issue, as we believe many Australian institutions currently do, a logical assessment of potential transmission risk is possible that is both fair to the patient and the infected worker. Stratification of healthcare workers according to their level of HCV viraemia and whether they are involved in exposure-prone procedures is a logical start — this we have attempted in our proposed guidelines.1

Some healthcare workers may avoid being tested so that they can have the protection of not knowing their serological status.2 However, recent studies suggesting the efficacy of early treatment of acute HCV infection3 mean that it will actually be in healthcare workers’ interest to know if they have recently acquired HCV infection — as long as they are treated in a manner that protects their health and workplace rights, while also protecting the rights of their patients.