A comparative user evaluation of three needle-protective devices

Education and training for preventing sharps injuries and splash exposures in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

In healthcare settings, health care workers (HCWs) are at risk of acquiring infectious diseases through sharps injuries and splash exposures to blood or bodily fluids. Education and training interventions are widely used to protect workers' health and safety and to prevent sharps injuries. In certain countries, they are part of obligatory professional development for HCWs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of education and training interventions compared to no intervention or alternative interventions for preventing sharps injuries and splash exposures in HCWs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL and OSH-update (from all time until February 2016). In addition, we searched the databases of Global Health, AustHealth and Web of Science (from all time until February 2016). The original search strategy was re-run in November 2019, and again in February 2020. In April 2020, the search strategy was updated and run in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science (from 2016 to current).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomized trials (cluster-RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time series (ITS) study designs, and controlled before-and-after studies (CBA), that evaluated the effect of education and training interventions on the incidence of sharps injuries and splash exposures compared to no-intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (SC, HL) independently selected studies, and extracted data for the included studies. Studies were analyzed, risk of bias assessed (HL, JL) , and pooled using random-effect meta-analysis, where applicable, according to their design types. As primary outcome we looked for sharps injuries and splash exposures and calculated them as incidence of injuries per 1000 health care workers per year. For the quality of evidence we applied GRADE for the main outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies met our inclusion criteria: one cluster-RCT, three CCTs, and three ITS studies. The baseline rates of sharps injuries varied from 43 to 203 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year in studies with hospital registry systems. In questionnaire-based studies, the rates of sharps injuries were higher, from 1800 to 7000 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year.  The majority of studies utilised a combination of education and training interventions, including interactive demonstrations, educational presentations, web-based information systems, and marketing tools which we found similar enough to be combined. In the only cluster-RCT (n=796) from a high-income country, the single session educational workshop decreased sharps injuries at 12 months follow-up, but this was not statistically significant either measured as registry-based reporting of injuries (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or as self-reported injuries (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.21, very low-quality evidence) In three CCTs educational interventions decreased sharps injuries at two months follow-up (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95, 330 participants, very low-quality evidence). In the meta-analysis of two ITS studies with a similar injury rate, (N=2104), the injury rate decreased immediately post-intervention by 9.3 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year (95% CI -14.9 to -3.8). There was a small non-significant decrease in trend over time post-intervention of 2.3 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year (95% CI -12.4 to 7.8, low-quality evidence). One ITS study (n=255) had a seven-fold higher injury rate compared to the other two ITS studies and only three data points before and after the intervention. The study reported a change in injury rate of 77 injuries per 1000 HCWs (95% CI -117.2 to -37.1, very low-quality evidence) immediately after the intervention, and a decrease in trend post-intervention of 32.5 injuries per 1000 HCWs per year (95% CI -49.6 to -15.4, very low quality evidence). None of the studies allowed analyses of splash exposures separately from sharps injuries. None of the studies reported rates of blood-borne infections in patients or staff. There was very low-quality evidence of short-term positive changes in process outcomes such as knowledge in sharps injuries and behaviors related to injury prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-quality evidence that education and training interventions may cause small decreases in the incidence of sharps injuries two to twelve months after the intervention. There was very low-quality evidence that educational interventions may improve knowledge and behaviors related to sharps injuries in the short term but we are uncertain of this effect. Future studies should focus on developing valid measures of sharps injuries for reliable monitoring. Developing educational interventions in high-risk settings is another priority.

New Insulin Delivery Recommendations

Many primary care professionals manage injection or infusion therapies in patients with diabetes. Few published guidelines have been available to help such professionals and their patients manage these therapies. Herein, we present new, practical, and comprehensive recommendations for diabetes injections and infusions. These recommendations were informed by a large international survey of current practice and were written and vetted by 183 diabetes experts from 54 countries at the Forum for Injection Technique and Therapy: Expert Recommendations (FITTER) workshop held in Rome, Italy, in 2015. Recommendations are organized around the themes of anatomy, physiology, pathology, psychology, and technology. Key among the recommendations are that the shortest needles (currently the 4-mm pen and 6-mm syringe needles) are safe, effective, and less painful and should be the first-line choice in all patient categories; intramuscular injections should be avoided, especially with long-acting insulins, because severe hypoglycemia may result; lipohypertrophy is a frequent complication of therapy that distorts insulin absorption, and, therefore, injections and infusions should not be given into these lesions and correct site rotation will help prevent them; effective long-term therapy with insulin is critically dependent on addressing psychological hurdles upstream, even before insulin has been started; inappropriate disposal of used sharps poses a risk of infection with blood-borne pathogens; and mitigation is possible with proper training, effective disposal strategies, and the use of safety devices. Adherence to these new recommendations should lead to more effective therapies, improved outcomes, and lower costs for patients with diabetes.

Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings: a systematic review

Background

Adopting technologies such as injection safety devices in healthcare settings can enhance injection safety. Developing guidelines for appropriate adoption of such technologies need to consider factors beyond evidence for their health effects. The objective of this study is to systematically review the published literature for evidence among healthcare workers and patients about knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings.

Methods

We included both qualitative and quantitative studies conducted with the general public, patients, and healthcare workers, administrators, or policy makers. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and CENTRAL. We used a duplicate and independent approach to title and abstract screening, full text screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment.

Results

Out of a total of 6568 identified citations, we judged fourteen studies as eligible for this systematic review. All these studies were surveys, conducted with healthcare workers in high-income countries. We did not identify any qualitative study, or a study of the general public, patients, healthcare administrators or policy makers. We did not identify any study assessing knowledge, or values assigned to outcomes relevant to injection safety devices. Each of the included studies suffered from methodological limitations, which lowers our confidence in their findings. Based on the findings of six studies, the injection safety devices were generally perceived as easy to use and as an improvement compared with conventional syringes. Some of these studies reported few technical problems while using the devices. In three studies assessing perceived safety, the majority of participants judged the devices as safe. Two studies reported positive perceptions of healthcare workers regarding patient tolerance of these injection safety devices. One study found that less than half the nurses felt comfortable using the insulin pens. Findings from four studies assessing preference and satisfaction were not consistent.

Conclusions

This systematic review identified evidence that injection safety devices are generally perceived as easy to use, safe, and tolerated by patients. There were few reports of technical problems while using the devices and some discomfort by nurses using the insulin pens.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0505-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Management of occupational blood exposures: looking at progress

Occupational blood exposure (OBE) is a well-recognised hazard in the healthcare setting. A 4-year review of OBE in a large Irish teaching hospital over 2008-2011 found encouraging results, but identified deficits in documentation, communication and follow-up. The process was repeated 1 year later to determine if improvements were achieved and recommendations implemented. In 2012, 110 OBEs were reported, of which 81% were reported within 72 hours of the injury. The administration of first aid was adequately documented in 85% of cases and confirmation of the provision of appropriate information and/or counselling in 72% of the cases. Attendance for follow-up was broadly in line with the previous review. The findings and recommendations contributed to improvements in practice. However, to ensure these are ongoing, the reinforcement of an educational strategy in a systematic way is fundamental.

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.

Development of a method for evaluating accessibility of medical equipment for patients with disabilities

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a method for evaluating accessibility of medical equipment for patients with disabilities.

METHODS

The researchers reviewed videotapes of patient-participants with various physical and sensory disabilities using different types of medical equipment. For each of 11 videotapes, four observers independently identified and documented access and safety barriers, such as physical, sensory, cognitive, and environmental barriers. Inter-observer variability for identifying barrier presence was assessed with kappa statistics for pairs of observers.

RESULTS

A list of 10 access and safety barriers was developed through an iterative consensus process, which identified design features of medical equipment that presented difficulties for participants with disabilities. The list is useful for identifying and categorizing accessibility problems found in equipment. While reliability of barrier identification was substantial or moderate for some barriers, reconciliation of barrier events identified by multiple video observers is recommended for optimal results.

epic2: 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 commissioned by the Department of Health (DH) and developed during 1998-2000 by a nurse-led multi-professional team of researchers and specialist clinicians. Following extensive consultation, they were published in January 2001. These guidelines describe the precautions healthcare workers should take in three areas: standard principles for preventing HCAI, which include hospital environmental hygiene, hand hygiene, the use of personal protective equipment, and the safe use and disposal of sharps; preventing infections associated with the use of short-term indwelling urethral catheters; and preventing infections associated with central venous catheters. The evidence for these guidelines was identified by multiple systematic reviews of experimental and non-experimental research and expert opinion as reflected in systematically identified professional, national and international guidelines, which were formally assessed by a validated appraisal process. In 2003, we developed complementary national guidelines for preventing HCAI in primary and community care on behalf of the National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care (National Institute for Healthand Clinical Excellence). 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 in preventing HCAI, incorporated into amended guidelines. Periodically updating the evidence base and guideline recommendations is essential in order to maintain their validity and authority. Consequently, the DH commissioned a review of new evidence published following the last systematic reviews. We have now updated the evidence base for making infection prevention and control recommendations. A critical assessment of the updated evidence indicated that the original epic guidelines published in 2001 remain robust, relevant and appropriate but that adjustments need to be made to some guideline recommendations following a synopsis of the evidence underpinning the guidelines. These updated national guidelines (epic2) provide comprehensive recommendations for preventing HCAI in hospitals and other acute care settings based on the best currently available evidence. Because this is not always the best possible evidence, we have included a suggested agenda for further research in each section of the guidelines. National evidence-based guidelines are broad principles of best practice which need to be integrated into local practice guidelines. To monitor implementation, we have suggested key audit criteria for each section of recommendations. Clinically effective infection prevention and control practice is an essential feature of protecting patients. 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 healthcare in NHS hospitals in England can be minimised.

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.

Occupational blood and body fluid exposure in an Australian teaching hospital

To examine work-related blood and body fluid exposure (BBFE) among health-care workers (HCWs), to explore potential risk factors and to provide policy suggestions, a 6-year retrospective study of all reported BBFE among HCWs (1998-2003) was conducted in a 430-bed teaching hospital in Australia. Results showed that BBFE reporting was consistent throughout the study period, with medical staff experiencing the highest rate of sharps injury (10.4%). Hollow-bore needles were implicated in 51.7% of all percutaneous injuries. Most incidents occurred during sharps use (40.4%) or after use but before disposal (27.1%). Nursing staff experienced 68.5% of reported mucocutaneous exposure. Many such exposures occurred in the absence of any protective attire (61.1%). This study indicated that emphasis on work practice, attire, disposal systems and education strategies, as well as the use of safety sharps should be employed to reduce work-related injuries among HCWs in Australia.

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.