A review of needle-protective devices to prevent sharps injuries

Systematic Review of Blood-Borne Pathogen Exposure Rates Among Medical Students

BACKGROUND

Blood-borne pathogen exposures (BBPEs) pose a risk to health care workers (HCWs). Needlestick injuries (NSIs) have declined overall, but not for surgical HCWs. There are limited data regarding BBPEs among medical students (MSs) in their clinical years. We aimed to quantify this risk for third- and fourth-year MSs.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The PUBMED database was searched to identify studies of third- and fourth-year MSs using the terms BBPE, NSI, and MS. Studies of other HCWs were excluded if MS data were not extractable. Additional studies were identified from references. Descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seven of 171 articles published from 2002 to 2018 met study criteria. All used self-reported data from surveys/questionnaires. One-third of MSs reported BBPEs (n = 194/600, 32.3%) with a mean of 1 in 3.09 and a median of 1 in 3.53 (range: 1 in 1.9-8.3 students). Most events were NSIs (144/194, 74%) with a mean of 1 NSI per 4.05 MSs and median of 1 in 4.625 (range: 1 in 2.47-10.71). The remaining BBPEs reported included blood and bodily fluid splashes (n = 37, 19%), other mucocutaneous exposures (n = 7, 3.6%), and uncategorized injuries (n = 2, 1%).

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of senior MSs reported BBPEs during clinical rotations. Most BBPEs were NSIs. Quantifying this risk allows for anticipatory education and protocol development to protect students and other new HCWs. Educational efforts focused on NSI prevention before and during clinical rotations may help reduce BBPEs.

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.

Hospital resuscitation teams: a review of the risks to the healthcare worker

Background

“Code blue” events and related resuscitation efforts involve multidisciplinary bedside teams that implement specialized interventions aimed at patient revival. Activities include performing effective chest compressions, assessing and restoring a perfusing cardiac rhythm, stabilizing the airway, and treating the underlying cause of the arrest. While the existing critical care literature has appropriately focused on the patient, there has been a dearth of information discussing the various stresses to the healthcare team. This review summarizes the available literature regarding occupational risks to medical emergency teams, characterizes these risks, offers preventive strategies to healthcare workers, and highlights further research needs.

Methods

We performed a literature search of PubMed for English articles of all types (randomized controlled trials, case-control and cohort studies, case reports and series, editorials and commentaries) through September 22, 2016, discussing potential occupational hazards during resuscitation scenarios. Of the 6266 articles reviewed, 73 relevant articles were included.

Results

The literature search identified six potential occupational risk categories to members of the resuscitation team—infectious, electrical, musculoskeletal, chemical, irradiative, and psychological. Retrieved articles were reviewed in detail by the authors.

Conclusion

Overall, we found there is limited evidence detailing the risks to healthcare workers performing resuscitation. We identify these risks and offer potential solutions. There are clearly numerous opportunities for further study in this field.

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.

Anaphylaxis treatment: ergonomics of epinephrine autoinjector design

Epinephrine administration is a critical component of individualized emergency action plans for patients at risk for anaphylaxis. Fundamental ergonomic principles can be used to facilitate rapid and effective use of an epinephrine autoinjector when appropriate. Specific patient characteristics, including age and strength, that impact physical and cognitive capabilities, should be considered when choosing an epinephrine autoinjector. Considerations in the optimal functioning of an autoinjector include the device being portable, identifiable, safe, and effective. Size, shape, coloring, and labeling of the device all contribute to the device being portable and identifiable. Trigger-lock features, designs resistant to physical perturbations, and safety technology to prevent injury after use contribute to safety and reliability. Optimal grip designs, tailored in size and/or shape to specific patient types, contribute to reliability and effectiveness. After selection of the most appropriate autoinjector, hands-on training, practice, and drills should be implemented.

Provision and use of safety-engineered medical devices among home care and hospice nurses in North Carolina

BACKGROUND

Nurses who provide care in the home are at risk of blood exposure from needlesticks. Using safety-engineered medical devices reduces the risk of needlestick. The objectives of this study were to assess provision of safety devices by home care and hospice agencies as well as the use of these devices by home care and hospice nurses in North Carolina, and to examine the association between provision and use.

METHODS

A mail survey was conducted among North Carolina home care and hospice nurses in 2006.

RESULTS

The adjusted response rate was 69% (n = 833). The percentage of nurses who were always provided with safety devices ranged from 51% (blood tube holders) to 83% (winged steel needles). Ninety-five percent of nurses who were always provided with safety devices, but only 15%-50% of nurses who were not always provided with safety devices, used a safety device the last time they used that general type of device. Among nurses who did not use a safety device on that occasion, 60%-80% did not use it because it was not provided by the agency.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that limited access is the primary reason for home care/hospice nurses' failure to use safety devices. The policy goal of providing safety devices to health care workers in all situations in which such devices could reduce their risk of needlestick is not being achieved for home care nurses in North Carolina.

A prospective randomized trial of two safety peripheral intravenous catheters

BACKGROUND

To reduce the risk of accidental needlestick injuries, first active then passive safety devices were developed on IV catheters. However, whether these catheters are easy to implement and really protect personnel from accidental needlestick is untested.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized survey, we compared a passive safety catheter with an active safety catheter and a nonsafety classic catheter. The main objective was to evaluate the difficulty of inserting the catheters in terms of the number of insertion failures, difficulties introducing the catheter and withdrawing the needle, and the normality of the blood reflux in the delivery system. The second objective was to determine the degree of exposure to patients' blood evaluated as the number of exposures of the staff and blood splashes of the environment, and the staff's sense of protection.

RESULTS

Seven hundred fifty-nine assessment cards were collected. The number of failures for the three catheter groups was similar and not statistically different. Introduction of the catheter was more difficult with the active safety catheter. Needle withdrawal was more difficult with the passive safety catheter. The blood reflux was abnormal more often with the safety catheters. The staff's exposure was more frequent with the active safety catheter. The number of blood splashes was more common with the safety catheters.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety catheters are not superior with regard to failure rate in the catheter's placement. Users feel better protected, but find the use of safety catheters more difficult, and their handling generates more splashing of blood into the environment. The passive safety catheter is more efficient than the active safety catheter with regard to ease of introduction of the catheter into the vein and the staff's exposure to the patient's blood.