Role of safety-engineered devices in preventing needlestick injuries in 32 French hospitals

Safe and effective use of a passive safety needle by healthcare professionals in a simulated environment, including perceptions and preferences

BACKGROUND

Needlestick injuries (NSIs) may potentially expose healthcare professionals (HCPs) to bloodborne pathogens. Safety needles are designed to protect against NSIs. We evaluated whether a new fully passive safety needle could be used safely by HCPs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The passive safety needle was tested by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in subcutaneous or intramuscular injection scenarios in simulation studies (1-3). Data collected included successes, close calls, difficulties, use errors, and failures. In study 4, HCPs rated the device safety (21-item questionnaire).

RESULTS

Overall, 104 participants completed 4772 simulated tasks, including 932 injections. 915 injections (98.18%) were performed successfully and no NSIs (0%) were observed in any of the studies. Studies 1 & 2: 84.15% tasks and 96.06% injections were completed successfully, but use errors occurred, mostly arising from the participants' mental model. There were no failures in Study 3. In Study 4, >98% of participants responded positively to every question, while all felt that the passive safety feature could eliminate NSIs and would better protect against bloodborne pathogens than other existing devices with active or semi-passive safety mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

The passive safety needle was used successfully by HCPs, did not lead to any NSIs, and was rated as the safest compared to similar devices.

Prevention from Sharp Injuries in the Hospital Sector: An Italian National Observatory on the Implementation of the Council Directive 2010/32/EU before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Sharp injuries, determining the risk of bloodborne infections and psychological distress in healthcare workers, may be prevented by a set of strategies, legally enforced in Europe through the Directive 2010/32/EU. To assess its level of implementation in Italy, a national survey was conducted in 2017 and again in 2021, evaluating the progress and possible drawbacks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Altogether, 285 safety managers and 330 nurses from a representative sample of 97 and 117 public hospitals were interviewed using a standardized questionnaire. Knowledge of the Directive requirements decreased significantly, with <60% of participants answering correctly in 2021, and nurses' attendance in specific courses dropped to 25% in 2021 compared to 54% in 2017. Over 75% of hospitals introduced multiple safety-engineered devices (SED), though total replacement occurred in <50% of cases; routine SED availability increased for blood collection (89%) and venous access devices (83%). Incorrect behaviors in handling sharps decreased significantly over time. Nurses' HBV vaccination coverage was high (89% in both surveys); in the last year, 97% were vaccinated against COVID, and 47% against influenza. Average annual injuries per hospital did not increase significantly (32 in 2021 vs. 26 in 2017). In 2017, nurses' perceived safety barriers were working in emergency situations (49%) and lack of resources (40%); in 2021, understaffing (73%), physical fatigue (62%), and handling difficulties while wearing full protective equipment (59%). Safety measures were implemented in Italian hospitals, and although the average injuries per hospital did not show a decrease, these measures could have helped protect healthcare workers during the pandemic, mitigating its potential impact on the increase in situations at risk of injury.

Investigation and Analysis of Sharp Injuries among Health Care Workers from 36 Hospitals in Shandong Province, China

Background

This study investigated and analyzed the current situation of sharp injuries among health care workers (HCWs) in China's Shandong Province.

Methods

By means of questionnaire survey, the incidence of sharp injuries among HCWs from 36 hospitals in China's Shandong Province in October 2019 was investigated, and the results of this survey were compared with those of October 2012.

Results

A total of 48165 HCWs were investigated. 549 cases of sharp injuries occurred. The incidence of sharp injuries was 1.14%, which was significantly lower than that in October 2012 (9.71%). In the occupational distribution of sharp injuries among HCWs, the proportion of nurses was 58.65%, doctors 23.32%, and interns 12.02%. Among the distribution of sharp injury departments, general wards, operating rooms, intensive care units, disinfection supply centers, and outpatient clinics were the high-incidence sites of occupational exposure among HCWs. The main instruments causing sharp injuries in HCWs were syringes, scalp steel needles, surgical suture needles, vacuum blood collection needles, and glass slides. Drug administration, double-handed loop needle cap, blood extraction, surgical suture needle, and arteriovenous needle extraction were high-risk operations causing sharp instrument injuries in HCWs.

Conclusion

The incidence of sharp injuries among HCWs from 36 hospitals in Shandong Province in October 2019 was significantly lower than that in October 2012. Sharp injuries were a common type of occupational exposure for HCWs. The occurrence of sharp injuries should be effectively reduced by changing wrong habitual behavior and implementing standard protective measures.

Cost of Blood and Body Fluid Occupational Exposure Management in Beijing, China

(1) Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the cost of blood and body fluid (BBF) occupational exposure management in healthcare facilities in Beijing, China. (2) Methods: A survey was conducted from August to October 2018, seeking general information concerning the management of occupational exposure to BBF and the cost of the management process. In total, 216 healthcare facilities were surveyed, using a stratified-selection method. The collected information included BBF management protocols, direct costs such as laboratory testing fees, drug costs and medical service fees, as well as indirect costs, such as wages, lost working time, injury compensation, and psychological counseling time. (3) Results: The cost of post-BBF exposure management varied according to the infection status of the exposure source patients, the immune status of exposed employees, and the location and level of healthcare facilities. The mean values of management cost were determined to be hepatitis B (HBV)-positive source (RMB 5936/USD 897), hepatitis C (HCV)-positive source (RMB 5738/USD 867), Treponema pallidum (TP)-positive source (RMB 4508/USD 681), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive source (RMB 12,709/USD 1920), and unknown sources (RMB 7441/USD 1124). The survey also revealed that some healthcare facilities have insufficient post-exposure management. (4) Conclusions: A better post-exposure management system is needed in Beijing to reduce both infection risk after exposure and costs.

Understanding sharps use in an Australian Emergency Department: A mixed methods organisational case study

BACKGROUND

Despite the introduction of a range of safety policies and sharps equipment designed to protect healthcare workers, rates of percutaneous injuries from occupational exposure to sharps remains high. This study examined the availability and use of various types of sharps devices in a tertiary hospital emergency department, to understand clinician choice between non-safety and safety devices; and to document their safe and unsafe use of sharps.

METHODS

This mixed methods study consisted of areview of stock levels, a survey of staff usage, and a content analysis of semi-structured interview data to explore factors which impact on staff preferences for different sharps devices.

RESULTS

Staff identified a range of sharps risks, as well as barriers and enablers to the use of safety devices. Availability of, and preference for, familiar devices influenced choice of devices used in clinical practice, despite awareness of associated risks.

CONCLUSIONS

This understanding of equipment use and the factors that motivate such use have informed the first stage of the knowledge-to-action cycle. Knowledge translation, should include the development of policies to help reduce the risk of sharps injury. Culture change and ongoing skills development might help to overcome entrenched procedures and increase voluntary engagement with safer sharps.

Needlestick prevention devices: data from hospital surveillance in Piedmont, Italy-comprehensive analysis on needlestick injuries between healthcare workers after the introduction of safety devices

OBJECTIVE

Needlestick and sharps injuries (NSIs) involving healthcare workers (HCWs) are worldwide under surveillance since long time; the implementation of the European Directive 32/2010 regarding the mandatory use of safety-engineered devices (SEDs) seems to have reduced the number of these accidents. Our surveillance investigated the frequency and the modality of SED-related NSIs in the Piedmont region to verify changes in the epidemiology of these events.

METHODS

We analysed the exposure records of NSIs, device usage data and structural data of 42 acute care hospitals and compared conventional and safety devices. We calculated the accident rates per 100 000 needles and, as a measure of SED efficacy, the relative risk between the use of safety and non-safety devices with a 95% CI. We also described the dynamics of the NSIs and the most involved professional groups of HCWs, procedures and devices.

RESULTS

Total and specific device accident rates for 100 000 needles were lower with the use of SEDs. In 2015-2016, there were 1640 NSIs, with a decreasing absolute number during the observation period; 18% were SEDs related. Half of the total accidents with SEDs occurred in the patient's room, and nurses were involved in 78% of the cases. The most involved devices were the butterfly needles and peripheral venous catheters, and the most involved procedures were venous sampling (40%) and phlebotherapy (16%). The exposures occurred mostly during the procedure, and 45% of the SED-related injuries occurred during the disposal of the device; 92% of the SEDs involved had a manual activation mechanism.

CONCLUSION

In agreement with the results of other European studies, our results show that SEDs reduce the risk of percutaneous exposure of HCWs, but in introducing SEDs, we must select those with a higher level of safety (with a passive activation mechanism) and improve the healthcare staff training programmes.

Do training and needle-safety devices prevent needlestick injuries? A systematised review of the literature

This systematised review was undertaken to appraise research on the effects of training and the use of needle-safety devices (NSDs) on the prevention of needlestick injuries (NSIs) among health workers, focusing on a European perspective. A literature search from 2007 to 2017 was performed, which identified six studies that investigated the introduction of training and NSDs and their affect on NSIs. The six chosen studies identified that training, as well as the adoption of NSDs, has an impact on preventing NSIs. However, further information is required on the content and mode of delivery of training and on which types of NSDs are most effective at preventing injuries. This will help healthcare workers to understand and implement the most effective strategies to prevent injuries. This article provides a critique of the research approaches used in the six studies.

Epidemiology of needlestick and sharp injuries among health care workers based on records from 252 hospitals for the period 2010-2014, Poland

BACKGROUND

Needlestick and sharp injuries (NSIs) are an important element of public health and should be closely monitored. On the other hand there are no precise Polish data on a number of the occupational NSIs. The aim of the study was to assess the failure to report injuries and then to estimate the actual number of NSIs among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Poland based on the collected data.

METHODS

Analysis of injury registers on the basis of 252 hospitals in Poland. Conducting 487 surveys among doctors, nurses and paramedics. Calculation of rates of injuries per 1000 workers per year (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)). The level of statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

In the study period, 9775 NSIs were registered in the hospitals. Majority of the NSIs were recorded among nurses (72.6%,p < 0.01). The needle was the tool responsible for the greatest number of the NSIs in all professional groups (79.5%, p < 0.01). The average annual NSIs rates based on hospital registers were: 16.0/1000 doctors, 20.5/1000 nurses, 16.8/1000 paramedics. Every second NSIs was not reported (45.2%). We estimated that there are probably 13,567 NSIs every year among hospital care workers in Poland.

CONCLUSIONS

NSIs are a significant health problem for HCWs and should be subject to epidemiological surveillance. The purpose of the training of medical personnel should be to increase the number of injuries reported. The implementation of the epidemiological surveillance system will allow for the unification of the obtained data, which would be more comparable on the national scale as well as between different countries.

Overcoming public health risks to staff during the management of waste from healthcare facilities

Purpose The management of public health risks is a key focus for the European Union. One of the key factors that has been shown to pose a public health risk is that of the management of needles from healthcare facilities. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach Using audits of two case study hospitals based in northern Italy, this study sought to examine the key factors that resulted in needle stick injuries amongst staff and suggest measures to minimise these risks. Findings The number of needle stick injuries was influenced by various key factors including the time period during the year, the length of time employed, the location within the site, staff category and working hours. Practical implications Suggestions for overcoming the risk factors, including redesigning working patterns, staff training and awareness building, and the use of safety-engineered devices are outlined. Originality/value This study examined the incidence of needle stick injuries amongst healthcare staff in two Italian hospitals, which was lower than in other countries due to various factors, including recapping of needles not being allowed, the introduction of self-retractable needles and awareness campaigns about the correct disposal procedures of potentially infectious waste.

[Occupational and non occupational exposure to viral risk]

The transmission of an infectious disease can occur through exposure to blood or other potentially infectious body fluids, particularly in the event of skin-puncture injuries for healthcare workers, and during sexual intercourse. These situations are known as accidental blood exposures and sexual exposures respectively. Combined actions carried out have allowed to significantly reduce risks, either to healthcare professionals (by standard precautions, provision of safety devices, Hepatitis B vaccination made compulsory in the 1990s, antiretroviral post-exposure prophylaxis that should be initiated as soon as possible after exposure), or to people engaging in unprotected sex (by prevention messages, condom promotion, and antiretroviral post-exposure prophylaxis). In any case, treatment of people infected by chronic diseases such as HBV or HIV, as well as possible drug eradication of HCV, are key for decreasing post-exposure risk of disease transmission. Post-exposure prophylaxis should be initiated as early as possible and intended for use only in patients with high-risk exposures. Knowledge of source person serostatus, information of exposed person on prevention, benefits and risks of treatment, and follow-up procedure are key points. Procedures to be followed in the event of an exposure must be known by all. Arrangements set up to allow risk assessment and management of exposed people rely on hospital services operating on a permanent basis.

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.

Comparing non-safety with safety device sharps injury incidence data from two different occupational surveillance systems

The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogens Standard as amended by the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act requiring the use of safety-engineered medical devices to prevent needlesticks and sharps injuries has been in place since 2001. Injury changes over time include differences between those from non-safety compared with safety-engineered medical devices. This research compares two US occupational incident surveillance systems to determine whether these data can be generalized to other facilities and other countries either with legislation in place or considering developing national policies for the prevention of sharps injuries among healthcare personnel.

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.

Reducing the underreporting of percutaneous exposure incidents: A single-center experience

Although risk reduction strategies have been implemented throughout the world, underreporting of percutaneous exposure incidents (PEIs) is common among exposed health care workers. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence rate of reported PEIs before and after implementation of an intensified reporting management policy. The introduction of an intensified reporting system led to significantly increased reporting after a PEI has occurred. However, continuous education needs to be provided to improve awareness.

How Much do Needlestick Injuries Cost? A Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluations of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Personnel

OBJECTIVE To provide an overview of the economic aspects of needlestick and sharps injury (NSI) management among healthcare personnel (HCP) within a Health Technology Assessment project to evaluate the impact of safety-engineered devices on health care METHODS A systematic review of economic analyses related to NSIs was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement and by searching PubMed and Scopus databases (January 1997-February 2015). Mean costs were stratified by study approach (modeling or data driven) and type of cost (direct or indirect). Costs were evaluated using the CDC operative definition and converted to 2015 International US dollars (Int$). RESULTS A total of 14 studies were retrieved: 8 data-driven studies and 6 modeling studies. Among them, 11 studies provided direct and indirect costs and 3 studies provided only direct costs. The median of the means for aggregate (direct + indirect) costs was Int$747 (range, Int$199-Int$1,691). The medians of the means for disaggregated costs were Int$425 (range, Int$48-Int$1,516) for direct costs (9 studies) and Int$322 (range, Int$152-Int$413) for indirect costs (6 studies). When compared with data-driven studies, modeling studies had higher disaggregated and aggregated costs, but data-driven studies showed greater variability. Indirect costs were consistent between studies, mostly referring to lost productivity, while direct costs varied widely within and between studies according to source infectivity, HCP susceptibility, and post-exposure diagnostic and prophylactic protocols. Costs of treating infections were not included, and intangible costs could equal those associated with NSI medical evaluations. CONCLUSIONS NSIs generate significant direct, indirect, potential, and intangible costs, possibly increasing over time. Economic efforts directed at preventing occupational exposures and infections, including provision of safety-engineered devices, may be offset by the savings from a lower incidence of NSIs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:635-646.

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.

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.

Reducing needlestick injuries through safety-engineered devices: results of a Japanese multi-centre study

BACKGROUND

Quantitative information on the effectiveness of safety-engineered devices (SEDs) is needed to support decisions regarding their implementation.

AIM

To elucidate the effects of SED use in winged steel needles, intravenous (IV) catheter stylets and suture needles on needlestick injury (NSI) incidence rates in Japan.

METHODS

Japan EPINet survey data and device utilization data for conventional devices and SEDs were collected from 26 participating hospitals between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2014. The NSI incidence rate for every 100,000 devices was calculated according to hospital, year and SED use for winged steel needles, IV catheter stylets and suture needles. Weighted means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to calculate overall NSI incidence rates.

FINDINGS

In total, there were 236 NSIs for winged steel needles, 152 NSIs for IV catheter stylets and 180 NSIs for suture needles. The weighted NSI incidence rates per 100,000 devices for SEDs and non-SEDs were as follows: winged steel needles, 2.10 (95% CI 1.66-2.54) and 14.95 (95% CI 2.46-27.43), respectively; IV catheter stylets, 0.95 (95% CI 0.60-1.29) and 6.39 (95% CI 3.56-9.23), respectively; and suture needles, 1.47 (95% CI -1.14-4.09) and 16.50 (95% CI 4.15-28.86), respectively. All devices showed a significant reduction in the NSI incidence rate with SED use (P < 0.001 for winged steel needles, P = 0.035 for IV catheter stylets and P = 0.044 for suture needles).

CONCLUSION

SED use substantially reduces the incidence of NSIs, and is therefore recommended as a means to prevent occupational infections in healthcare workers and improve healthcare safety.

Prevention of needle-stick injuries in healthcare facilities: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE To estimate the summary effectiveness of different needle-stick injury (NSI)-prevention interventions. DESIGN We conducted a meta-analysis of English-language articles evaluating methods for reducing needle stick, sharp, or percutaneous injuries published from 2002 to 2012 identified using PubMed and Medline EBSCO databases. Data were extracted using a standardized instrument. Random effects models were used to estimate the summary effectiveness of 3 interventions: training alone, safety-engineered devices (SEDs) alone, and the combination of training and SEDs. SETTING Healthcare facilities, mainly hospitals PARTICIPANTS Healthcare workers including physicians, midwives, and nurses RESULTS From an initial pool of 250 potentially relevant studies, 17 studies met our inclusion criteria. Six eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness of training interventions, and the summary effect of the training intervention was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.89). The summary effect across the 5 studies that assessed the efficacy of SEDs was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64). A total of 8 studies evaluated the effectiveness of training plus SEDs, with a summary effect of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.50). CONCLUSION Training combined with SEDs can substantially reduce the risk of NSIs.

Sharp Decrease of Reported Occupational Blood and Body Fluid Exposures in French Hospitals, 2003–2012: Results of the French National Network Survey, AES-RAISIN

OBJECTIVE

To assess the temporal trend of reported occupational blood and body fluid exposures (BBFE) in French healthcare facilities.

METHOD

Retrospective follow-up of reported BBFE in French healthcare facilities on a voluntary basis from 2003 to 2012 with a focus on those enrolled every year from 2008 to 2012 (stable cohort 2008–12).

FINDINGS

Reported BBFE incidence rate per 100 beds decreased from 7.5% in 2003 to 6.3% in 2012 (minus 16%). Percutaneous injuries were the most frequent reported BBFE (84.0% in 2003 and 79.1% in 2012). Compliance with glove use (59.1% in 2003 to 67.0% in 2012) and sharps-disposal container accessibility (68.1% in 2003 to 73.4% in 2012) have both increased. A significant drop in preventable BBFE was observed (48.3% in 2003 to 30.9% in 2012). Finally, the use of safety-engineered devices increased from 2008 to 2012.

CONCLUSION

Of the 415,209 hospital beds in France, 26,158 BBFE could have occurred in France in 2012, compared with 35,364 BBFE in 2003. Healthcare personnel safety has been sharply improved during the past 10 years in France.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;36(8):963–968

Safety-engineered intravenous catheter utilization among Canadian pediatric anesthesiologists

INTRODUCTION

Compared with other specialties, anesthesiologists are at increased risk of acquiring a blood-borne pathogen (BBP) through needle-stick injuries (NSIs). Safety-engineered intravenous catheters (SEICs) have been designed to reduce NSIs but have not been well received. Our objective was to determine SEIC usage by pediatric anesthesiologists, including availability, utilization, perceived utility, and sources of NSI before and after legislation mandating their use in Canada.

METHODS

After Ethics Committee approval, we conducted two electronic surveys of Canadian pediatric anesthesiologists (CPAs) based in tertiary care settings. Survey responses from May through August 2012 and June through September 2006 were considered. In addition to SEIC use and perceived utility, respondents described factors influencing SEIC adoption and workplace NSIs. Standard metrics of survey validity and reliability were employed.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were returned by 154 (69%) and 124 (53%) respondents in 2012 and 2006, respectively, representing 15 of 16 Canadian pediatric tertiary care centres. Reported SEIC availability increased in hospitals (82% vs 98%; difference in proportion 16%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9 to 24%; P < 0.001) and in operating rooms (62% vs 86%; difference in proportion 24%, 95% CI: 13 to 34%; P < 0.001) Respondents' report of "routine" personal use of SEICs increased from 43 of 76 (56%) to 112 of 132 (85%) (difference in proportion 29%, 95% CI: 16 to 41%; P < 0.001). Attitudes concerning perceived utility of SEICs remained unchanged and evenly split between respondents. "Awkward handling" remained the primary reason for non-use. In all, 71 (48%) and 60 (48%) respondents reported recent contaminated NSIs in 2012 and 2006, respectively. The majority were related to a needle on a disposable syringe.

DISCUSSION

Despite only moderate perceived utility, SEIC uptake among CPAs is high. However, NSIs remain common. Several opportunities to reduce the risk for work-related BBP transmission among CPAs were evident.

Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV seroprevalence in critically ill emergency medicine department patients in a tertiary inner city hospital in Istanbul, Turkey

OBJECTIVE

Emergency medicine staff is working at risk of blood-borne infections during their daily practice every time. The risk of transmission is higher when dealing with critically ill patients. Our objective was to find out the prevalence of Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV, in critically ill red-coded emergency department patients.

METHODS

The study was carried out as prospective observational study between 1 September 2012 and 31 January 2013 in a tertiary inner city hospital emergency department in Istanbul, Turkey. Red triage coded patients managed in resuscitation room were enrolled.

RESULTS

One thousand patients were included during the study period. Fifty of them were HBV positive. Eighteen patients were HCV positive and 2 had both HBV and HCV. HIV was not recorded. Forty one of them were trauma patients. There were 226 unconscious or uncooperative patients. Prior blood transfusion history was present in 92 of the patients and among them 11 had HBV and 3 had HCV. Four patients or their relatives were aware of their HCV positivity. HBV positivity was already known by the patients or their relatives. Total HBV vaccination ratio was 7.4%.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of HCV (1.8%) and HBV(5%) seroprevalence in our study group was very low which correlated with the recent literature regarding the Turkish population. HIV was not detected during the study period. This may also be accepted as consistent with the very low number of reported cases in Turkey.

The Prevalence of Accidental Needle Stick Injury and their Reporting among Healthcare Workers in Orthopaedic Wards in General Hospital Melaka, Malaysia

ABSTRACT

Background :Accidental needle-stick injuries (NSIs) are a hazard for health-care workers and general public health. Orthopaedic surgeons may be more prone to NSIs due to the prevalence of bone spikes in the operative field and the use of sharp orthopaedic instruments such as drills, saws and wires. A hospital-based cross sectional study was conducted in the orthopedic wards of Melaka General Hospital. The prevalence of NSIs was 32 (20.9%) and majority of it occurred during assisting in operation theatre 13(37.4%). Among them six (18.8%) were specialist, 12(37.5%) medical officer, 10 (31.2%) house officer and four staff nurses (12.5%). Among the respondents 142 (92.8%) had been immunized against Hepatitis B and 148 (96.7%) participants had knowledge regarding universal precaution. The incidence of NSI among health care workers at orthopaedics ward was not any higher in comparison with the similar studies and it was found out that the prevalence was more in junior doctors compared with specialist and staff nurses and it was statistically significant.

KEY WORDS

Needle sticks injury, health care workers, and standard precaution.

Sharps injuries amongst healthcare workers: review of incidence, transmissions and costs

BACKGROUND

Sharps injuries and the related risk of infections such as hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) represent one of the major occupational health risks for healthcare workers (HCWs).

LITERATURE REVIEW

An overview of available data on the incidence of sharps injuries and the related HBV, HCV and HIV infections and ensuing costs is provided.

RESULTS

Literature reported incidence rates of sharps injuries ranging from 1.4 to 9.5 per 100 HCWs, resulting in a weighted mean of 3.7/100 HCWs per year. Sharps injuries were associated with infective disease transmissions from patients to HCWs resulting in 0.42 HBV infections, 0.05-1.30 HCV infections and 0.04-0.32 HIV infections per 100 sharps injuries per year. The related societal costs had a mean of €272, amounting to a mean of €1,966 if the source patient was HIV positive with HBV and HCV co-infections.

CONCLUSION

Sharps injuries remain a frequent threat amongst HCWs. The follow-up and treatment of sharps injuries and the deriving consequences represent a significant cost factor.

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.

The comparison of heparinized insulin syringes and safety-engineered blood gas syringes used in arterial blood gas sampling in the ED setting (randomized controlled study)

INTRODUCTION

The arterial blood gas measurement process is a painful and invasive procedure, often uncomfortable for both the patient and the physician. Because the patient-related factors that determine the difficulty of the process cannot be controlled, the physician-related factors and blood gas measurement techniques are a modifiable area of improvement that ought to be considered. Many hospitals use insulin syringes or syringes washed with heparin for the purpose of blood gas measurement because they do not have blood gas-specific syringes. In this prospective cross-sectional study, we aimed to compare safety-engineered blood gas syringes and conventional heparinized syringes used during the arterial blood gas extraction process in terms of ease of operation, the physician-patient satisfaction, laboratory appropriateness, and complications.

METHODS

Our study included patients whose arterial blood gas needed to be measured in the emergency department and who agreed to participate in the study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. The arterial blood gas of the patients from the first group was measured by using conventional heparinized syringes, whereas safety-engineered blood gas syringes were used to measure the arterial blood gas of the patients from the second group. The groups were compared in terms of demographic data, the number of attempts, the physician and patient satisfaction, early and late-term complications, and laboratory appropriateness of the taken sample.

RESULTS

A total of 550 patients were included in our study in a 2-month study period. There were no significant differences between patients in terms of sex, age, weight, height, body mass index, and wrist circumference. In addition, the number of attempts (P=.489), patients' pain level during the procedure (P=.145), and the degree of difficulty of the procedure according to the patient (P=.109) and physician (P=.554) were not significantly different between the groups. After arterial blood gas extraction procedure, 115 patients (20.9%) developed complications. In the conventional heparinized syringe group, the complication rate (n=69; 25.1%) was significantly higher compared with the group that used safety-engineered blood gas syringes (n=46; 16%; P=.0211). Localized pain, which is one of the most common early complications, was more frequent in the conventional heparinized syringe group (19.3%). Complications in women (P=.003) and local pain (P=.01) developed lesser in the second group that used safety-engineered blood gas syringes, and the patient-physician satisfaction was higher in that group, as well. In the evaluation 48 hours after the procedure, the ratios of infection and local hematoma were higher in the conventional heparinized syringe group (P=.0213 and P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we did not find any significant differences between the conventional heparinized syringes and safety-engineered blood gas syringes in terms of ease of operation, physician and patient satisfaction, and appropriateness of the taken sample. However, patients whose arterial blood gas was extracted by using safety-engineered blood gas syringes felt less pain and experienced fewer infections and hematomas at their puncture site.

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.

Economic benefits of safety-engineered sharp devices in Belgium - a budget impact model

Background

Measures to protect healthcare workers where there is risk of injury or infection from medical sharps became mandatory in the European Union (EU) from May 2013. Our research objective was to estimate the net budget impact of introducing safety-engineered devices (SEDs) for prevention of needlestick injuries (NSIs) in a Belgian hospital.

Methods

A 5-year incidence-based budget impact model was developed from the hospital inpatient perspective, comparing costs and outcomes with SEDs and prior-used conventional (non-safety) devices. The model accounts for device acquisition costs and costs of NSI management in 4 areas of application where SEDs are currently used: blood collection, infusion, injection and diabetes insulin administration. Model input data were sourced from the Institut National d’Assurance Maladie-Invalidité, published studies, clinical guidelines and market research. Costs are discounted at 3%.

Results

For a 420-bed hospital, 100% substitution of conventional devices by SEDs is estimated to decrease the cumulative 5-year incidence of NSIs from 310 to 75, and those associated with exposure to blood-borne viral diseases from 60 to 15. Cost savings from managing fewer NSIs more than offset increased device acquisition costs, yielding estimated 5-year overall savings of €51,710. The direction of these results is robust to a range of sensitivity and model scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in the acquisition costs of SEDs, rates of NSI associated with conventional devices, and the acquisition costs of conventional devices.

Conclusions

NSIs are a significant potential risk with the use of sharp devices. The incidence of NSIs and the costs associated with their management can be reduced through the adoption of safer work practices, including investment in SEDs. For a Belgian hospital, the budget impact model reports that the incremental acquisition costs of SEDs are offset by the savings from fewer NSIs. The availability of more robust data for NSI reduction rates, and broadening the scope of the model to include ancillary measures for hospital conversion to SED usage, outpatient and paramedic device use, and transmission of other blood-borne diseases, would strengthen the model.

Incidence rate of needlestick and sharps injuries in 67 Japanese hospitals: a national surveillance study

Background

Determining incidence rates of needlestick and sharps injuries (NSIs) using data from multiple hospitals may help hospitals to compare their in-house data with national averages and thereby institute relevant measures to minimize NSIs. We aimed to determine the incidence rate of NSIs using the nationwide EPINet surveillance system.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Data were analyzed from 5,463 cases collected between April 2009 and March 2011 from 67 Japanese HIV/AIDS referral hospitals that participated in EPINet-Japan. The NSI incidence rate was calculated as the annual number of cases with NSIs per 100 occupied beds, according to the demographic characteristics of the injured person, place, timing, device, and the patients’ infectious status. The NSI incidence rates according to hospital size were analyzed by a non-parametric test of trend. The mean number of cases with NSIs per 100 occupied beds per year was 4.8 (95% confidence interval, 4.1–5.6) for 25 hospitals with 399 or fewer beds, 6.7 (5.9–7.4) for 24 hospitals with 400–799 beds, and 7.6 (6.7–8.5) for 18 hospitals with 800 or more beds (p-trend<0.01). NSIs frequently occurred in health care workers in their 20 s; the NSI incidence rate for this age group was 2.1 (1.6–2.5) for hospitals having 399 or fewer beds, 3.5 (3.0–4.1) for hospitals with 400–799 beds, and 4.5 (3.9–5.0) for hospitals with 800 or more beds (p-trend<0.01).

Conclusions/Significance

The incidence rate of NSIs tended to be higher for larger hospitals and in workers aged less than 40 years; injury occurrence was more likely to occur in places such as patient rooms and operating rooms. Application of the NSI incidence rates by hospital size, as a benchmark, could allow individual hospitals to compare their NSI incidence rates with those of other institutions, which could facilitate the development of adequate control strategies.

FIT4Safety: recommendations in the diabetes care setting

Sharps injuries pose a serious threat to health professionals, patients, and downstream workers. FIT4Safety is an initiative that seeks to promote safety and best practice in the diabetes setting. An Introduction to FIT4Safety and its Recommendations for the Safety of Sharps in the Diabetes Care Setting explains how and why the FIT4Safety initiative was formed, what it aims to achieve, and the importance of ensuring safety in the diabetes care setting. Outputs from FIT4Safety include Injection Safety in UK and Ireland: Safety of Sharps in Diabetes Recommendations. These recommendations were developed to provide a resource for all those directly involved in, or overseeing, diabetes care. The main topics and guidance detailed within the recommendations are discussed, as well as EU Directive 2010/32 on sharps injury prevention and the UK's Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013.

Chinks in the armor: percutaneous injuries from hollow bore safety-engineered sharps devices

BACKGROUND

Despite their overwhelming efficacy, safety-engineered sharp devices (SESDs) cause a residual fraction of injuries. Although the fraction of injuries from SESDs is less than that reported for nonsafety devices, it remains a "preventable fraction" and is a sizable target for further advances.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 3,297 percutaneous injuries from hollow bore safety-engineered devices occurring between 2001 and 2009 was conducted examining the Exposure Prevention Information Network (EPINet) needlestick surveillance data.

RESULTS

Nurses sustain 64.6% of all SESD injuries. 42.9% Of SESD injuries occur after device use and are likely preventable through consistent and effective use of safety-engineered technology. Excluding injuries that occurred during device use or between procedural steps, 71.8% (n/N = 28/39) of physician injuries, 58.2% (n/N = 645/1,109) of injuries to nurses, and 45.8% (n/N = 88/192) of injuries to phlebotomists occurred when an available SESD was not fully activated.

CONCLUSION

Passive devices that do not require action on the part of the end user to engage a safety feature currently represent a small portion of the SESD market. Wider dissemination of a broader array of passive SESDs coupled with continual education of end users is essential to an effective sharps injury prevention program.

Conventional and sharp safety devices in 6 hospitals in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Reengineered sharp safety devices have been recommended to reduce occupational percutaneous injury risk in health care facilities. We conducted this study just over 1 year after passage of legislation requiring the use of sharp safety medical devices to assess the frequency of safety and conventional sharp device use and whether safety features were being activated to cover sharp points after safety devices were used and before disposal.

METHODS

Approximately equal numbers of sharps disposal containers from various wards in 6 nonprofit adult and pediatric British Columbia hospitals were audited by paired research assistants, wearing protective clothing.

RESULTS

In the 699 audited sharps containers, 7% (1,690/25,910) of all devices were conventional devices, specifically 2% (96/4,702) of all phlebotomy devices, 7% (1,240/17,705) of all syringes, and 10% (354/3,503) of all intravenous catheters. In addition, 94% (4,344/4,602) of all safety phlebotomy devices, 95% (2,955/3,119) of all safety intravenous devices, and 80% (13,050/16,420) of all safety syringes had been activated before disposal.

CONCLUSION

More than 1 year after legislation was passed mandating the use of sharp safety devices in British Columbia hospitals, the risk from sharps remains excessive because of the ongoing use of conventional sharp devices and nonactivation of safety devices.

Safety syringes and anti-needlestick devices in orthopaedic surgery

BACKGROUND

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS), The Joint Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act encourage the integration of safety-engineered devices to prevent needlestick injuries to health-care workers and patients. We hypothesized that safety syringes and needles could be used in outpatient orthopaedic injection and aspiration procedures.

METHODS

The study investigated the orthopaedic uses and procedural idiosyncrasies of safety-engineered devices, including (1) four safety needles (Eclipse, SafetyGlide, SurGuard, and Magellan), (2) a mechanical safety syringe (RPD), (3) two automatic retractable syringes (Integra, VanishPoint), (4) three manual retractable syringes (Procedur-SF, Baksnap, Invirosnap), and (5) three shielded syringes (Safety-Lok, Monoject, and Digitally Activated Shielded [DAS] Syringe). The devices were first tested ex vivo, and then 1300 devices were used for 425 subjects undergoing outpatient arthrocentesis, intra-articular injections, local anesthesia, aspiration biopsy, and ultrasound-guided procedures.

RESULTS

During the clinical observation, there were no accidental needlesticks (0 needlesticks per 1300 devices). Safety needles could be successfully used on a Luer syringe but were limited to ≤1.5 in (≤3.81 cm) in length and the shield could interfere with sonography. The mechanical safety syringes functioned well in all orthopaedic procedures. Automatic retractable syringes were too small for arthrocentesis of the knee, and the plunger blew out and prematurely collapsed with high-pressure injections. The manual retractable syringes and shielded syringes could be used with conventional needles for most orthopaedic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The most effective and reliable safety devices for orthopaedic syringe procedures are shielded safety needles, mechanical syringes, manual retractable syringes, and shielded syringes, but not automatic retractable syringes. Even when adopting safety-engineered devices for an orthopaedic clinic, conventional syringes larger than 20 mL and conventional needles longer than 1.5 in (3.8 cm) are necessary.

Blood-borne viruses in health care workers: prevention and management

Three pathogens account for most cases of occupationally acquired blood-borne infection: hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The highest proportion of occupational transmission is due to percutaneous injury (PI) via hollow-bore needles with vascular access. We briefly review prevention and management of blood-borne pathogens in health care workers (HCWs) in developed countries. HCW compliance with standard precautions is necessary for prevention of PI. Safety-engineered devices are now being increasingly promoted as an approach to decreasing the rate of PI. Prevention of HBV transmission requires HCW immunization through vaccination against HBV. In non-vaccinated HCWs (or HCWs with an unknown antibody response to vaccination) exposed to an HbsAg-positive or an untested source patient, post-exposure prophylaxis with HBV vaccine, hepatitis B immunoglobulin or both must be started as soon as possible. Although no available prophylaxis exists for HCV, it is crucial to identify HCV exposure and infection in health care settings and to consequently propose early treatment when transmission occurs. Following occupational exposure with potential for HIV transmission, use of antiretroviral post-exposure prophylaxis must be evaluated. Patients need to be protected from blood-borne pathogen-infected HCWs, and especially surgeons performing exposure-prone procedures (EPPs) with risk of transmission to the patient. However, HCWs not performing EPPs should be protected from arbitrary administrative decisions that would restrict their practice rights. Finally, it must be emphasized that occupational blood exposure is of great concern in developing countries, with higher risk of exposure to blood-borne viruses because of a higher prevalence of the latter than in developed countries, re-use of needles and syringes and greater risk of sustaining PI, since injection routes are more frequently used for drug administration than in developed countries.

Ongoing use of conventional devices and safety device activation rates in hospitals in Ontario, Canada

This study assessed voluntary compliance with the use of sharp safety devices in lieu of conventional ones and the activation status of these safety devices: VanishPoint syringes, Terumo Surshield butterflies, and Insyte Autoguard IV catheters. Sharps disposal containers from various wards in three private, not-for profit, university-affiliated Ontario hospitals were audited during 9 days in August 2007. In the 149 audited sharps containers, 55% of all syringes found were conventional compared with 45% that were safety syringes. In the three hospitals, the percentages of conventional (non-safety) vs. safety syringes found in used sharps containers were as follows, respectively: (i) 72% conventional and 28% safety, (ii) 55% conventional and 45% safety, and (iii) 65% conventional and 35% safety. In addition, it was found that 77% of 2131 Terumo butterflies, 97% of 1117 Insyte Autoguard IV catheters, and 87% of 4897 VanishPoint syringes in the containers had been activated. This study, carried out approximately 1 year before it was legally required to use safety instead of sharp conventional devices, found that most devices in use were conventional ones. It was also found that only the activation rate for the safety IV device was acceptable.

Needlestick injury rates according to different types of safety-engineered devices: results of a French multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the incidence of needlestick injuries (NSIs) among different models of safety-engineered devices (SEDs) (automatic, semiautomatic, and manually activated safety) in healthcare settings.

DESIGN

This multicenter survey, conducted from January 2005 through December 2006, examined all prospectively documented SED-related NSIs reported by healthcare workers to their occupational medicine departments. Participating hospitals were asked retrospectively to report the types, brands, and number of SEDs purchased, in order to estimate SED-specific rates of NSI. Setting. Sixty-one hospitals in France.

RESULTS

More than 22 million SEDs were purchased during the study period, and a total of 453 SED-related NSIs were documented. The mean overall frequency of NSIs was 2.05 injuries per 100,000 SEDs purchased. Device-specific NSI rates were compared using Poisson approximation. The 95% confidence interval was used to define statistical significance. Passive (fully automatic) devices were associated with the lowest NSI incidence rate. Among active devices, those with a semiautomatic safety feature were significantly more effective than those with a manually activated toppling shield, which in turn were significantly more effective than those with a manually activated sliding shield (P < .001, chi(2) test). The same gradient of SED efficacy was observed when the type of healthcare procedure was taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

Passive SEDs are most effective for NSI prevention. Further studies are needed to determine whether their higher cost may be offset by savings related to fewer NSIs and to a reduced need for user training.

Occupational exposure of health care personnel to hepatitis B and hepatitis C: prevention and surveillance strategies

Ensuring the safety of personnel working in health care environments can be challenging and requires a multifaceted approach to target reductions in occupational exposures to blood-borne pathogens, such as hepatitis B or hepatitis C. This article reviews the epidemiology of occupational exposures to hepatitis B and hepatitis C in health care personnel in hospital settings. The nature and likelihood of risk to health care personnel are evaluated along with estimates of seroconversion risk. The review focuses on prevention programs and available surveillance programs to aid in monitoring and reducing occupational exposures to blood-borne pathogens.