Assessing the effect of long-term availability of engineering controls on needlestick injuries among health care workers: a 3-year preimplementation and postimplementation comparison

Safety interventions for the prevention of accidents at work: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Limited knowledge regarding the relative effectiveness of workplace accident prevention approaches creates barriers to informed decision-making by policy makers, public health practitioners, workplace, and worker advocates.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of broad categories of safety interventions in preventing accidents at work. The review aims to compare effects of safety interventions to no intervention, usual activities, or alternative intervention, and if possible, to examine which constituent components of safety intervention programs contribute more strongly to preventing accidents at work in a given setting or context.

DATE SOURCES

Studies were identified through electronic bibliographic searches, government policy databanks, and Internet search engines. The last search was carried out on July 9, 2015. Gray literature were identified by searching OSH ROM and Google. No language or date restrictions were applied. Searches done between February and July of 2015 included PubMed (1966), Embase (1980), CINAHL (1981), OSH ROM (NIOSHTIC 1977, HSELINE 1977, CIS-DOC 1974), PsycINFO (1806), EconLit (1969), Web of Science (1969), and ProQuest (1861); dates represent initial availability of each database. Websites of pertinent institutions (NIOSH, Perosh) were also searched.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Included studies had to focus on accidents at work, include an evaluation of a safety intervention, and have used injuries at work, or a relevant proxy, as an outcome measure. Experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational study designs were utilized, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies, and observational designs using serial measures (interrupted time series, retrospective cohort designs, and before and after studies using multiple measures). Interventions were classified by approach at the individual or group level, and broad categories based on the prevention approach including modification of: Attitudes (through information and persuasive campaign messaging).Behaviors (through training, incentives, goal setting, feedback/coaching).Physiological condition (by physical training).Climate/norms/culture (by coaching, feedback, modification of safety management/leadership).Structural conditions (including physical environment, engineering, legislation and enforcement, sectorial-level norms). When combined approaches were used, interventions were termed "multifaceted," and when an approach(es) is applied to more than one organizational level (e.g., individual, group, and/or organization), it is termed "across levels."

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Narrative report review captured industry (NACE), work setting, participant characteristics, theoretical basis for approach, intervention fidelity, research design, risk of bias, contextual detail, outcomes measures and results. Additional items were extracted for studies with serial measures including approaches to improve internal validity, assessments of reasonable statistical approaches (Effective Practice of Organization of Care [EPOC] criteria) and overall inference. Random-effects inverse variance weighted meta-analytic methods were used to synthesize odds ratios, rate ratios, or standardized mean differences for the outcomes for RCT and CBA studies with low or moderate levels of heterogeneity. For studies with greater heterogeneity and those using serial measures, we relied on narrative analyses to synthesize findings.

RESULTS

In total 100 original studies were included for synthesis analysis, including 16 RCT study designs, 30 CBA study designs, and 54 studies using serial measures (ITS study designs). These studies represented 120 cases of safety interventions. The number of participants included 31,971,908 individuals in 59 safety interventions, 417,693 groups/firms in 35 safety interventions, and 15,505 injuries in 17 safety interventions. Out of the 59 safety interventions, two were evaluating national prevention measures, which alone accounted for 31,667,110 individuals. The remaining nine safety interventions used other types of measures, such as safety exposure, safety observations, gloves or claim rates. Strong evidence supports greater effects being achieved with safety interventions directed toward the group or organization level rather than individual behavior change. Engineering controls are more effective at reducing injuries than other approaches, particularly when engineered changes can be introduced without requiring "decision-to-use" by workplaces. Multifaceted approaches combining intervention elements on the organizational level, or across levels, provided moderate to strong effects, in particular when engineering controls were included. Interventions based on firm epidemiologic evidence of causality and a strong conceptual approach were more effective. Effects that are more modest were observed (in short follow-up) for safety climate interventions, using techniques such as feedback or leadership training to improve safety communication. There was limited evidence for a strong effect at medium-term with more intense counseling approaches. Evidence supports regulation/legislation as contributing to the prevention of accidents at work, but with lower effect sizes. Enforcement appears to work more consistently, but with smaller effects. In general, the results were consistent with previous systematic reviews of specific types of safety interventions, although the effectiveness of economic incentives to prevent accidents at work was not consistent with our results, and effectiveness of physiological safety intervention was only consistent to some extent.

LIMITATIONS

Acute musculoskeletal injuries and injuries from more long-time workplace exposures were not always clearly distinguished in research reports. In some studies acute and chronic exposures were mixed, resulting in inevitable misclassification. Of note, the classification of these events also remains problematic in clinical medicine. It was not possible to conduct meta-analyses on all types of interventions (due to variability in approach, context, and participants). The findings presented for most intervention types are from limited sources, and assessment of publication bias was not possible. These issues are not surprising, given the breadth of the field of occupational safety. To incorporate studies using serial measures, which provide the only source of information for some safety interventions such as legislation, we took a systematic, grounded approach to their review. Rather than requiring more stringent, specific criteria for inclusion of ITS studies, we chose to assess how investigators justified their approach to design and analyses, based on the context in which they were working. We sought to identify measures taken to improve external validity of studies, reasonable statistical inference, as well as an overall appropriate inferential process. We found the process useful and enlightening. Given the new approach, we may have failed to extract points others may find relevant. Similarly, to facilitate the broad nature of this review, we used a novel categorization of safety interventions, which is likely to evolve with additional use. The broad scope of this review and the time and resources available did not allow for contacting authors of original papers or seeking translation of non-English manuscripts, resulting in a few cases where we did not have sufficient information that may have been possible to obtain from the authors.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Our synthesis of the relative effectiveness of workplace safety interventions is in accordance with the Public Health Hierarchy of Hazard Control. Specifically, more effective interventions eliminate risk at the source of the hazard through engineering solutions or the separation of workers from hazards; effects were greater when these control measures worked independently of worker "decision-to-use" at the worksite. Interventions based on firm epidemiological evidence of causality and clear theoretical bases for the intervention approach were more effective in preventing injuries. Less effective behavioral approaches were often directed at the prevention of all workplace injuries through a common pathway, such as introducing safety training, without explicitly addressing specific hazards. We caution that this does not mean that training does not play an essential function in worker safety, but rather that it is not effective in the absence of other efforts. Due to the potential to reach large groups of workers through regulation and enforcement, these interventions with relatively modest effects, could have large population-based effects.

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.

Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The acquisition of needle-stick injuries (NSI) in a healthcare setting poses an occupational hazard of transmitting blood-borne pathogens from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs). The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence about the efficacy and safety of using safety-engineered intravenous devices and safety-engineered phlebotomy devices by HCWs.

METHODS

We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing safety-engineered devices to conventional/standard devices that lack safety features for delivering intravenous injections and/or for blood-withdrawal procedures (phlebotomy). The outcomes of interest included NSI rates, and blood-borne infections rates among HCWs and patients. We conducted an extensive literature search strategy using the OVID interface in October 2013. We followed the standard methods for study selection and data abstraction. When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We used the GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence by outcome.

RESULTS

We identified twenty-two eligible studies: Twelve assessed safety-engineered devices for intravenous procedures, five for phlebotomy procedures, and five for both. Twenty-one of those studies were observational while one was a randomized trial. All studies assessed the reduction in NSIs among HCWs. For safety-engineered intravenous devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.28 [0.13, 0.59] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.34 [0.08,1.49] (low quality evidence). For safety-engineered phlebotomy devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.57 [0.38, 0.84] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.53 [0.43,0.65] (moderate quality evidence). We identified no studies assessing the outcome of blood-borne infections among healthcare workers or patients.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate-quality evidence that the use of safety-engineered devices in intravenous injections and infusions, and phlebotomy (blood-drawing) procedures reduces NSI rates of HCWs.

Safety engineered injection devices for intramuscular, subcutaneous and intradermal injections in healthcare delivery settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Occupational sharps injuries are associated with transmission of bloodborne viruses to healthcare workers, including hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Similarly reuse of syringes in healthcare settings might transmit these infections between patients. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence about the effects of the use by health care workers of two types of safety engineered injection devices, when delivering intramuscular, subcutaneous, or intradermal injectable medications: sharps injury protection syringes and reuse prevention syringes.

METHODS

We included both randomized and non-randomized studies comparing safety syringes to syringes without safety features. Outcomes of interest included needlestick injuries, and HIV, HBV and HCV infections amongst HCWs (for sharps injury prevention syringes) and patients (for reuse prevention syringes). When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We tested results for heterogeneity across studies using the I statistic. We assessed the quality of evidence by outcome using the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

We included nine eligible studies: six assessed devices that qualify as sharps injury prevention devices, and three assessed devices that qualify as both injury prevention devices and reuse prevention devices. Eight studies were observational while one was randomized. All studies assessed a single outcome: needle stick injuries among healthcare workers. For sharp injury prevention syringes, the meta-analysis of five studies resulted in a pooled relative risk of 0.54 [0.41, 0.71] for the effect on needlestick injuries per healthcare worker. The associated quality of evidence was rated as moderate. For reuse prevention syringes, data from one study provided a relative risk of 0.40 [0.27, 0.59] for the effect on needlestick injuries per healthcare worker. The associated quality of evidence was rated as moderate. We identified no studies reporting on the effect on the reuse of syringes.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified moderate quality evidence that syringes with sharps injury prevention feature reduce the incidence of needlestick injuries per healthcare worker. We identified no studies reporting data for the remaining outcomes of interest for HCWs. Similarly we identified no studies reporting on the effect of syringes with a reuse prevention feature on the reuse of syringes or on the other outcomes of interest for patients.

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

BACKGROUND

Needlestick 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 January 2014) and LILACS (until January 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two 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 four RCTs with 1136 participants, two cluster-RCTs with 795 participants and 73,454 patient days, four CBAs with approximately 22,000 participants and seven ITS with an average of seven data points. These studies evaluated safe modifications of blood collection systems, intravenous (IV) systems, injection systems, multiple devices and sharps containers. The needlestick injury (NSI) rate in the control groups was estimated at about one to five NSIs per 1000 person-years. There was only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The risk of bias was high in most studies.In one ITS study that evaluated safe blood collection systems, NSIs decreased immediately after the introduction (effect size (ES) -6.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.5 to -4.2) and there was no clear evidence of an additional benefit over time (ES -1.2, 95% CI -2.5 to 0.1). Another ITS study used an outdated recapping shield.There was very low quality evidence that NSIs were reduced with the introduction of safe IV devices in two out of four studies but the other two studies showed no clear evidence of a trend towards a reduction. However, there was moderate quality evidence in four other studies that these devices increased the number of blood splashes where the safety system had to be engaged actively (relative risk (RR) 1.6, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.36).There was no clear evidence that the introduction of safe injection devices changed the NSI rate in two studies.The introduction of multiple safety devices showed a decrease in NSI in one study but not in another. The introduction of safety containers showed a decrease in NSI in one study but inconsistent results in two other studies.There was no evidence in the included studies about which type of device was better, for example shielding or retraction of the needle.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For safe blood collection systems, we found very low quality evidence in one study that these decrease needlestick injuries (NSIs). For intravenous systems, we found very low quality evidence that they result in a decrease of NSI compared with usual devices but moderate quality evidence that they increase contamination with blood. For other 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. All studies had a considerable risk of bias and the lack of evidence of a beneficial effect could be due both to confounding and bias. This does not mean that these devices are not effective.Cluster-randomised controlled studies are needed to compare the various types of safety engineered devices for their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

The importance of implementing safe sharps practices in the laboratory setting in Europe

Healthcare workers are at risk of sharps injuries and subsequent infection from more than 40 bloodborne pathogens or species. Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) together account for the vast majority of cases. The Directive 2010/32/EU “Prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector”, issued to protect workers from these risks, requires an integrated approach to prevention including awareness-raising, education, training, elimination of unnecessary needles, safe procedures for sharps use and disposal, banning of recapping, vaccination, use of personal protective equipment, provision of safety-engineered devices, and appropriate surveillance, monitoring, response and follow-up.

As laboratories represent a high-risk setting both in the preanalytical and analytical phase, we reviewed accidents and prevention in this setting in the light of the new legislation.

Phlebotomy is the procedure carrying the highest risk of exposure and infection, involved in 30–50% of HIV and HCV cases detected in nationwide systems following accidental blood exposures implemented since the 1990s in Italy and France. In laboratories, problems in the management of sharps containers, recapping, needle disassembly by hand and blood transfer from syringes into tubes were observed and accounted for two-thirds of injuries. These accidents could be reduced through education and monitoring of behaviours, and introduction of medical devices incorporating safety-engineered protection mechanisms with appropriate training. Laboratory staff should be immunized against HBV, and know policies and procedures for the post-exposure management and prophylaxis. The management commitment to safety is crucial to ensure the necessary support to these changes.

epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England

National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England were originally commissioned by the Department of Health and developed during 1998-2000 by a nurse-led multi-professional team of researchers and specialist clinicians. Following extensive consultation, they were first published in January 2001(1) and updated in 2007.(2) A cardinal feature of evidence-based guidelines is that they are subject to timely review in order that new research evidence and technological advances can be identified, appraised and, if shown to be effective for the prevention of HCAI, incorporated into amended guidelines. Periodically updating the evidence base and guideline recommendations is essential in order to maintain their validity and authority. The Department of Health commissioned a review of new evidence and we have updated the evidence base for making infection prevention and control recommendations. A critical assessment of the updated evidence indicated that the epic2 guidelines published in 2007 remain robust, relevant and appropriate, but some guideline recommendations required adjustments to enhance clarity and a number of new recommendations were required. These have been clearly identified in the text. In addition, the synopses of evidence underpinning the guideline recommendations have been updated. These guidelines (epic3) provide comprehensive recommendations for preventing HCAI in hospital and other acute care settings based on the best currently available evidence. National evidence-based guidelines are broad principles of best practice that need to be integrated into local practice guidelines and audited to reduce variation in practice and maintain patient safety. Clinically effective infection prevention and control practice is an essential feature of patient protection. By incorporating these guidelines into routine daily clinical practice, patient safety can be enhanced and the risk of patients acquiring an infection during episodes of health care in NHS hospitals in England can be minimised.

Enfermeiros com cargos de chefia e medidas preventivas à exposição ocupacional: facilidades e barreiras

Este estudo descritivo teve como objetivo avaliar as facilidades e barreiras enfrentadas por enfermeiros com cargo de chefia quanto às medidas preventivas à exposição ocupacional envolvendo material biológico, tendo como base o Modelo de Crenças em Saúde de Rosenstock. O estudo foi realizado com 87 enfermeiros de um hospital-escola do interior paulista em 2006. Os dados foram coletados através de um roteiro semi-estruturado, com questões abertas e fechadas e analisados pela técnica de Análise de Conteúdo. O equipamento de proteção individual foi citado como a maior facilidade para a prevenção de acidentes, porém a falta de adesão ao uso e o uso incorreto foram referidos como barreiras para a prevenção de acidentes e como os principais motivos para a ocorrência destes. É importante que estes enfermeiros estejam preparados para desenvolver estratégias individualizadas e motivadoras para adesão ao uso do equipamento de proteção individual em seus setores de trabalho.

National incidence of percutaneous injury in Taiwan healthcare workers

We established a standardized surveillance system using the Chinese Exposure Prevention Information Network to estimate the frequency of percutaneous injuries (PCIs) in Taiwanese healthcare workers (HCWs). Fourteen hospitals employing 8,132 HCWs participated and a total of 583 PCIs were reported. The annual number was estimated to be 8,058 PCIs per hospital size, 8,100 per HCWs, and 8,286 per inpatient-day; indicating similar estimates using different denominators. The estimated annual frequency of pathogen-specific PCIs was 1,168 for hepatitis B, 1,263 for hepatitis C, and 59 for HIV. This study documents the annual incidence of PCI among HCWs showing important potential exposure to viral hepatitis and HIV in Taiwan.

Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study

A four-year prospective study was undertaken at the University Hospital Birmingham National Health Service Foundation Trust to evaluate the effect of the introduction of a range of safety hypodermic needle devices on the number of reported needlestick injuries (NSIs). Data on the number of reported NSIs for four clinical areas began in 2001. Following an enhanced sharps awareness strategy in 2002, the number of NSIs reduced from 16.9/100,000 devices used in 2001 to 13.9/100,000 devices (P=0.813). In 2003, when only standard training was provided, the number of NSIs increased to 20/100,000 devices. However, the subsequent introduction of three safety needle devices with concomitant training resulted in a significant reduction in the number of reported NSIs to 6/100,000 devices in 2004 (P=0.045). User satisfaction and acceptance of the safety needles was also very favourable. These results suggest that when safety needle devices are introduced into the clinical setting and appropriate training is given, a significant reduction in the number of occupationally acquired NSIs may ensue.

Efficacy of safety-engineered device implementation in the prevention of percutaneous injuries: a review of published studies

Nearly 6 years have passed since the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000 was signed into law. We reviewed studies published since 1995 that evaluated the effect of safety-engineered device implementation on rates of percutaneous injury (PI) among health care workers. Criteria for inclusion of studies in the review were as follows: the intervention used to reduce PIs was a needleless system or a device with engineered sharps-injury protection, the outcome measurements included a PI rate, the intervention was evaluated in a defined population with clear comparison groups in clinical settings, and outcomes and denominators used for rate calculations were objectively measured using consistent methodology. All 17 studies reported substantial decreases in device-associated or overall PI rates after device implementation (range of reduction, 22%-100%). The majority of studies (n=12) were uncontrolled before-after trials with limited ability to control for confounding variables. In addition, implementation of safety-engineered devices was often accompanied by other interventions, and direct measurement of outcomes was not performed. Nevertheless, safety-engineered devices are an important component in PI prevention.

Blood-borne pathogens among firefighters and emergency medical technicians

OBJECTIVE

Firefighters and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel have the potential for occupational exposures to blood, which increases their risk for occupational blood-borne infection. To address this concern, the authors conducted a literature review of occupational blood exposures, the seroprevalence of blood-borne pathogens among these workers, and the seroprevalence of blood-borne pathogens among the patients they serve.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was conducted, and all identified articles that described surveys of exposures to blood or surveillance of blood-borne infections among firefighters and/or emergency medical technicians (EMTs) in the United States were reviewed. For hepatitis B, only seroprevalence surveys conducted after the 1992 requirement by the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard to offer vaccination to potentially exposed employees were included.

RESULTS

From these data, the expected number of annual occupational hapatitis C virus seroconversions was estimated to be between 5.8 and 118.9 per 100,000 employee-years for EMT-paramedics, between 3.4 and 33.7 per 100,000 for firefighter-EMTs, and up to 3.6 per 100,000 for firefighters (non-EMT).

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests there are a limited number of studies addressing this issue, and these studies have numerous limitations. Despite the expected occupational seroconversions and recognizing the limitations in drawing conclusions from these studies, it appears that firefighters and EMS personnel do not have an elevated seroprevalence of hepatitis C virus compared with the general population. Improved exposure surveillance programs would clarify exposure risks and identify potential interventions for firefighters and EMS personnel.

Impact of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries related to phlebotomy procedures in health care workers

BACKGROUND

Use of protective devices has become a common intervention to decrease sharps injuries in the hospitals; however few studies have examined the results of implementation of the different protective devices available.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of 2 protective devices in preventing needlestick injuries to health care workers.

METHODS

Sharps injury data were collected over a 7-year period (1993-1999) in a 3600-bed tertiary care university hospital in France. Pre- and postinterventional rates were compared after the implementation of 2 safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries (PIs) related to phlebotomy procedures.

RESULTS

From 1993 to 1999, an overall decrease in the needlestick-related injuries was noted. Since 1996, the incidence of phlebotomy-related PIs has significantly decreased. Phlebotomy procedures accounted for 19.4% of all percutaneous injuries in the preintervention period and 12% in the postintervention period (RR, O.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.72; P < .001). Needlestick-related injuries incidence rate decreased significantly after the implementation of the 2 safety devices, representing a 48% decline in incidence rate overall.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of these safety devices apparently contributed to a significant decrease in the percutaneous injuries related to phlebotomy procedures, but they constitute only part of a strategy that includes education of health care workers and collection of appropriate data that allow analysis of residuals percutaneous injuries.

Reducing percutaneous injuries at an academic health center: a 5-year review

BACKGROUND

The University of Connecticut Health Center Employee Health Service collected and used National Surveillance System for Hospital Health Care Workers (NaSH) data to (1) improve surveillance of health care worker blood and body fluid exposures (BBFEs) and (2) target specific interventions for higher-risk groups (nursing staff, medical and dental students, and residents).

METHODS

All 870 BBFE incidents were abstracted from the NaSH database from the 1997 through 2002 academic years. Incidence rates per 100 full-time-equivalent workers were determined for each targeted occupation group with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The number of percutaneous injuries declined among medical/dental students and nursing staff, and to a lesser degree for residents. The incidence rates decreased from 7.9% in 2000 to 2001 to 2.6% in 2001 to 2002 for students and from 9.2% in 1997 to 1998 to 2.7% in 2001 to 2002 for nursing staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from a surveillance database provided guidance for administrative, educational, and engineering control interventions. Active surveillance and periodic review of interventions are important aspects to reduce BBFEs in targeted high-risk occupational groups, especially when the workforce has a high turnover, as is typical in academic health centers.

Complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Bloodborne Pathogens Standard: implementing needleless systems and intravenous safety devices

Preventing the transmission of bloodborne pathogens to healthcare workers has been a mission and a challenge of the healthcare industry for over 20 years. The development of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Bloodborne Pathogens Standard in 1991 and the passing of the Needlestick Safety Act in 2000 mandated hospitals to develop an Exposure Control Plan to protect workers from these pathogens. Children's Hospital Boston began implementation of a needleless system in 1993. Employees readily accepted these systems into practice, because they were convenient and easy to use. A marked decrease in exposures to bloodborne pathogens naturally followed, which is consistent with the national data. The transition to intravenous (i.v.) safety devices at Children's Hospital began in 2000 and proved to be more of a challenge. First, the clinicians must choose a safety product, which requires developing and implementing a trial plan with potential catheters. This selection process is especially difficult in pediatrics where successful placement of the smallest-gauge catheter, no. 24, is imperative. After choosing an i.v. safety product, successful transition is dependent upon the thoroughness of i.v. safety device training and a commitment by the clinicians to the use of these products. Although the number of needlestick injuries and subsequent transmission of bloodborne pathogens have been further reduced with the use of i.v. safety devices, needlestick injuries still occur. This results from a lack of familiarity with the engineering of the device and therefore poor technique or a failure to activate the safety mechanism. Staff resistance due to loss of expertise with the new device and patient care concerns are additional barriers to the use of these new products. Addressing these obstacles and providing adequate training for all clinicians were required for successful implementation of these i.v. safety devices.

A review of needle-protective devices to prevent sharps injuries

The risk of occupational transmission of blood-borne pathogens via sharp devices remains a significant hazard to both healthcare and ancillary workers. Previously, education, training, universal precautions and hepatitis B vaccination have been implemented in an attempt to reduce the risk. However, the most recent preventive strategy is needle-protective devices. These have been developed from conventional products but incorporate a safety mechanism that, when activated, covers the needletip and thus assists in the prevention of needlestick injuries and potential seroconversion to blood-borne pathogens. To date, a number of studies have been undertaken to evaluate these products, the majority of which show these devices to be safe and reliable in addition to potentially reducing associated needlestick injuries. However, to encourage the introduction of these devices in the UK, further studies are needed to either support or refute initial findings and to encourage the evaluation and subsequent implementation of needle-protective devices.

A comparative user evaluation of three needle-protective devices

Needlestick injuries (NSI) can result in healthcare workers being exposed to blood-borne viruses. Between 1997 and 2002, three healthcare workers in the UK have seroconverted to hepatitis C and one to human immunodeficiency virus (Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS), 2003). Experience both in the UK and the USA suggests that even robust educational strategies may be insufficient to reduce the number of occupationally acquired NSI (Jagger et al, 1988). Needle-protective devices have now become more widely available and several studies have demonstrated an associated reduced risk of NSK. It is, however, essential that the devices are appropriately evaluated before introduction to ensure that they meet user requirements, do not interfere with function and reduce NSI risk. This article describes an evaluation programme carried out at the University Hospital Birmingham, UK. The programme focused on three key areas: safety, usability and compatibility. Results demonstrated that nurses rapidly adapt their practices to use the new safety devices and the study highlighted key education requirements that would be required before implementation. In addition, without this evaluation, it would not have been identified that attachment of the safety needles to the syringes requires a push-and-twist method or the use of LuerLok syringes to prevent detachment on activation of the safety procedure