Back to Federal guidance

Source-patient blood testing after workplace exposure

Summary A hospital asked whether it needed a separate physician order before testing a source patient’s blood after an employee exposure. OSHA said a hospital policy could provide for testing without that order, but the policy also had to account for states where the law allowed testing without the source person’s consent. The letter directed the hospital to state authorities for its local consent rule.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1994-04-26-0
Date issued
April 26, 1994
Status
Active
Status last verified October 9, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

April 26, 1994

Susan Stapel, R.N.
Whitley County Memorial Hospital
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Ms. Stapel:

This is in response to your letter received November 29, 1993, regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29 CFR 1910.1030 "Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne pathogens." We apologize for the delay in this response.

Specifically, you asked whether a physician's order is required before performing blood testing on a source individual after consent is obtained, or whether the hospital may state in its policy that tests shall be performed following the patient's consent.

You also state that you understand that consent must be obtained from the source individual. This is the situation in some states. However, in others, the third sentence in Section (f)(3)(ii)(A) applies. This sentence states, "When the source individual's consent is not required by law, the source individual's blood, if available, shall be tested and the results documented." This stipulation was included for employee protection. That is, in some states, if an employee has been exposed to blood, the employee has the right to know the infectious status of the source person. Such knowledge enables the employee to make informed treatment decisions. The blood of such a source individual is to be tested even without consent in those circumstances. The Indiana Board of Health Office of Legal Affairs (telephone (317) 633-8540) should be able to assist you in this determination.

A separate physician's order is not required before testing a source individual's blood. It is permissible for the hospital policy to simply state that such testing will be performed after consent is obtained, unless the hospital is located in a state where consent is not required. In that case, such a statement by the hospital would not be in compliance with OSHA's Bloodborne pathogens standard.

Thank you for your interest occupational safety and health.

Sincerely,
Ruth E. McCully, Director
Office of Health Compliance Assistance

[Requester letter reproduced on OSHA page; omitted here.]

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace