Case Study: In 1993 a study investigated medical waste practices used by 225 hospitals in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Hospitals were provided a definition of medical waste in the survey, but were asked how they define infectious waste. The question revealed confusion about what qualified as infectious waste versus medical waste, which may explain why almost half of the hospitals surveyed were not segregating general medical waste from infectious waste. The most frequently used practice of treating and disposing of medical waste was the use of private haulers to transport medical waste to treatment facilities. The next most frequently reported techniques were pouring into municipal sewage, depositing in landfills, and autoclaving. Other methods adopted by hospitals included Electro-Thermal-Deactivation (ETD), hydropulping, microwaving, and grinding before pouring into the municipal sewer. Hospitals in Oregon and Washington used microwaving and ETD methods to treat medical waste, while those in Idaho did not. Most hospitals in Oregon and Washington no longer operated their incinerators due to stricter regulations regarding air pollution emissions. Hospitals in Idaho, however, were still operating incinerators because there were no specific state regulations for these types of facilities. The study showed there was no consensus about which agency or organization's definition of infectious waste should be used in a waste management program.

Key Takeaways: To reduce the risks associated with managing medical waste it is critical for healthcare facilities to establish a clear definition for infectious waste and a clear waste management program.