Back to Federal guidance

Face protection during routine blood draws

Summary An OSHA regional office sought review of citations involving phlebotomists at a blood donation center. OSHA said face and eye splashes were not reasonably anticipated during routine venous blood draws, though related laboratory activities could require controls.
Document
Federal interpretive notice
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1995-05-01-1
Date issued
May 1, 1995
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.

May 1, 1995

MEMORANDUM FOR: MICHAEL G. CONNORS
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

FROM: JOHN B. MILES, JR., DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS

SUBJECT: AMERICAN RED CROSS

This memorandum is in response to your letter dated January 23, requesting that we review the American Red Cross citations issued by the Cleveland Area Office. You asked that an interpretation be provided on whether face protection is required for phlebotomists.

As you know, the selection of personal protective equipment for occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens is based on reasonably anticipated exposure. During routine phlebotomy, it is not reasonably anticipated that blood will reach the eyes or mouth of the employee, and eye or face protection is not required. This is particularly true in a blood donor center, since the donor is a volunteer and is not typically unruly or out of control.

In this particular case, the accident reports dating from 1992 to 1994 show that only 2 of the 17 exposure incidents occurred while drawing blood. One exposure incident (which occurred on October 26, 1992) appears to have affected a third party (the Health Historian) in the near proximity and not the nurse performing the actual blood draw. If the interpretation of the incident is accurate, then that exposure incident could not have been anticipated. That leaves one recorded exposure that occurred while a phlebotomist was removing a needle from a donor for the 3-year time period studied. This data further demonstrates that blood splashes to the face and eyes of phlebotomists are rare.

The remaining 15 exposure incidents recorded in that time period have been reviewed and appear to be incidents that occurred while employees were conducting lab tasks. In these situations when laboratory technicians are conducting blood-related lab activities, there may be a reasonably anticipated exposure to blood, and eye or face protection or some other control method may be required.

In summary, please bear in mind that phlebotomy involves the drawing of blood from a vein, rather than from an artery which is under pressure. If the phlebotomist mistakenly tries to draw blood from an artery, then a splash of blood could occur. In this case, there may be a skill deficiency which requires training. A properly trained phlebotomist is not reasonably anticipated to experience a splash of blood to the eye and face, and eye or face protection is not required.

We hope this answers your concerns. If you have any further questions please contact Wanda Bissell at 202 219-8036.

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