Impact of a single safety-engineered device on the occurrence of percutaneous injuries in a general hospital in Brazil

Needlesticks with safety devices and accident prevention: an integrative review

OBJECTIVE

To identify in the literature the efficacy of needlesticks with safety devices to reduce the occurrence of occupational accidents with exposure to biological material among health workers.

METHOD

Integrative literature review, structured in the stages: Guiding question, search, categorization of studies, evaluation, discussion and interpretation of results, and synthesis of knowledge. Search for original articles and systematic reviews on the main bases of the Health area, published from 2000 to 2016 in Portuguese, English and Spanish, with descriptors: needlesticks injuries, exposure to biological agents, needles, protective devices, occupational accidents, accident prevention and health personnel.

RESULTS

We selected eleven articles, most characterized the passive safety devices as more effective in reducing the occurrence of injuries by needlesticks.

CONCLUSION

The use of needlesticks with safety devices reduces the occurrence of accidents, bringing greater solvency when combined with the training of workers.

Use of safety syringes for administration of local anaesthesia among a sample of UK primary care dental professionals

Background

Safer sharps devices (SSDs) are commercially available and their use is mandated through UK legislation.

Aim

To identify the current usage of SSDs in UK primary care dentistry.

Method

A cross-sectional survey was administered to delegates at the 2017 British Dental Association (BDA) Conference and Exhibition in Manchester, and at the 2017 BDA Scottish Conference and Exhibition in Glasgow. The survey covered a range of questions relating to sharps injuries and use of traditional and safety syringes for delivery of local anaesthesia. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 22 (IBM Corp., 2013) and included chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.

Results

Seven hundred and ninety-six delegates participated, of whom 396 (49.7%) were using safety syringes for delivery of local anaesthesia. Of the 166 participants who had experienced a sharps injury in the past year, 76 (45.8%) worked in facilities that most commonly used SSDs for delivery of local anaesthesia.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that a significant number of dental practices in our sample have not adopted SSDs and suggest sharps injuries are still being sustained in some practices using SSDs. Further epidemiological research is required to provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of SSDs and reasons why SSDs have not been fully adopted in UK primary dental care.

Elimination of Lancet-Related Needlestick Injuries Using a Safety-Engineered Lancet: Experience in a Hospital

Background

Lancet-related needlestick injuries (NSIs) occur steadily in clinical practices. Safety-engineered devices (SEDs) can systematically reduce NSIs. However, the use of SEDs is not active and no study to guide the implementation of SEDs was known in South Korea. The lancet-related NSIs may be eliminated to zero incidence using a SED lancet with effective sharp injury protection and reuse prevention features.

Materials and Methods

We implemented a SED lancet by replacing a conventional prick lancet in a tertiary hospital in a sequential approach. A spot test of the new SED was conducted for 1 month to check the acceptability in practice and a questionnaire survey was obtained from the healthcare workers (HCWs). A pilot implementation of the SED lancet in 2 wards was made for 1 year. Based on these preliminary interventions, a hospital-wide full implementation of the SED lancet was launched. The incidence of NSIs and cost expenditure before and after the intervention were compared.

Results

There were 29 cases of conventional prick lancet-related NSIs for 3 years before the full implementation of SED lancet. The proportion of prick lancet-related NSIs among yearly all kinds of NSIs during two years before the pilot study was average 11.7% (22/188). Pre-interventional baseline incidence of all kinds of NSIs was 7.01 per 100 HCW-years. After the full implementation of SED lancet, the lancet-related NSIs became zero in the 2nd year (P = 0.001). The average direct cost of 18,393 US dollars (USD) per year from device and post-exposure medical care before the intervention rose to 20,701 USD in the 2nd year of the intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 210 USD per injury avoided.

Conclusion

The implementation of a SED lancet could eliminate the lancet-related NSIs to zero incidence. The cost increase incurred by the use of SED lancet was tolerable.

Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous exposure injuries from devices used for blood collection or for injections expose healthcare workers to the risk of blood borne infections such as hepatitis B and C, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Safety features such as shields or retractable needles can possibly contribute to the prevention of these injuries and it is important to evaluate their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of safety medical devices aiming to prevent percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel versus no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc and PsycINFO (until 11 November 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) designs of the effect of safety engineered medical devices on percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare staff.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We synthesized study results with a fixed-effect or random-effects model meta-analysis where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 1838 participants, two cluster-RCTs with 795 participants and 73,454 patient days, five CBAs with approximately 22,000 participants and eleven ITS with an average of 13.8 data points. These studies evaluated safe modifications of blood collection systems, intravenous (IV) systems, injection systems, multiple devices, sharps containers and legislation on the implementation of safe devices. We estimated the needlestick injury (NSI) rate in the control groups to be about one to five NSIs per 1000 person-years. There were only two studies from low- or middle-income countries. The risk of bias was high in 20 of 24 studies. Safe blood collection systems:We found one RCT that found a safety engineered blood gas syringe having no considerable effect on NSIs (Relative Risk (RR) 0.2, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.01 to 4.14, 550 patients, very low quality evidence). In one ITS study, safe blood collection systems decreased NSIs immediately after the introduction (effect size (ES) -6.9, 95% CI -9.5 to -4.2) but there was no further decrease over time (ES -1.2, 95% CI -2.5 to 0.1, very low quality evidence). Another ITS study evaluated an outdated recapping shield, which we did not consider further. Safe Intravenous systemsThere was very low quality evidence in two ITS studies that NSIs were reduced with the introduction of safe IV devices, whereas one RCT and one CBA study provided very low quality evidence of no effect. However, there was moderate quality evidence produced by four other RCT studies that these devices increased the number of blood splashes when the safety system had to be engaged actively (relative risk (RR) 1.6, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.36). In contrast there was low quality evidence produced by two RCTs of passive systems that showed no effect on blood splashes. Yet another RCT produced low quality evidence that a different safe active IV system also decreased the incidence of blood leakages. Safe injection devicesThere was very low quality evidence provided by one RCT and one CBA study showing that introduction of safe injection devices did not considerably change the NSI rate. One ITS study produced low quality evidence showing that the introduction of safe passive injection systems had no effect on NSI rate when compared to safe active injection systems. Multiple safe devicesThere was very low quality evidence from one CBA study and two ITS studies. According to the CBA study, the introduction of multiple safe devices resulted in a decrease in NSI,whereas the two ITS studies found no change. Safety containersOne CBA study produced very low quality evidence showing that the introduction of safety containers decreased NSI. However, two ITS studies evaluating the same intervention found inconsistent results. LegislationThere was low to moderate quality evidence in two ITS studies that introduction of legislation on the use of safety-engineered devices reduced the rate of NSIs among healthcare workers. There was also low quality evidence which showed a decrease in the trend over time for NSI rates.Twenty out of 24 studies had a high risk of bias and the lack of evidence of a beneficial effect could be due to both confounding and bias. This does not mean that these devices are not effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For safe blood collection systems, we found very low quality evidence of inconsistent effects on NSIs. For safe passive intravenous systems, we found very low quality evidence of a decrease in NSI and a reduction in the incidence of blood leakage events but moderate quality evidence that active systems may increase exposure to blood. For safe injection needles, the introduction of multiple safety devices or the introduction of sharps containers the evidence was inconsistent or there was no clear evidence of a benefit. There was low to moderate quality evidence that introduction of legislation probably reduces NSI rates.More high-quality cluster-randomised controlled studies that include cost-effectiveness measures are needed, especially in countries where both NSIs and blood-borne infections are highly prevalent.

A Model-Based Product Evaluation Protocol for Comparison of Safety-Engineered Protection Mechanisms of Winged Blood Collection Needles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate differences in product characteristics and user preferences of safety-engineered protection mechanisms of winged blood collection needles.

DESIGN

Randomized model-based simulation study.

SETTING

University medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 33 third-year medical students.

METHODS

Venipuncture was performed using winged blood collection needles with 4 different safety mechanisms: (a) Venofix Safety, (b) BD Vacutainer Push Button, (c) Safety-Multifly, and (d) Surshield Surflo. Each needle type was used in 3 consecutive tries: there was an uninstructed first handling, then instructions were given according to the operating manual; subsequently, a first trial and second trial were conducted. Study end points included successful activation, activation time, single-handed activation, correct activation, possible risk of needlestick injury, possibility of deactivation, and preferred safety mechanism.

RESULTS

The overall successful activation rate during the second trial was equal for all 4 devices (94%-100%). Median activation time was (a) 7 s, (b) 2 s, (c) 9 s, and (d) 7 s. Single-handed activation during the second trial was (a) 18%, (b) 82%, (c) 15%, and (d) 45%. Correct activation during the second trial was (a) 3%, (b) 64%, (c) 15%, and (d) 39%. Possible risk of needlestick injury during the second trial was highest with (d). Possibility of deactivation was (a) 0%, (b) 12%, (c) 9%, and (d) 18%. Individual preferences for each system were (a) 11, (b) 17, (c) 5, and (d) 0. The main reason for preference was the comprehensive safety mechanism.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences exist between safety mechanisms of winged blood collection needles.