Frequency of Occupational Bloodborne Infections and Sharps Injuries among Polish Paramedics from Selected Ambulance Stations

Sharps injuries within the healthcare student population: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported evidence on sharps injuries among nursing, medical and dental students but little is known about the amount, type and causes of sharps injuries affecting other healthcare students.

AIM

The aim of the narrative review was to identify the extent, type and causes of sharps injuries sustained by healthcare students, especially those not in those fields.

METHOD

Eight databases were searched using keywords to identify studies published between 1980 and March 2023.

FINDINGS

This narrative review highlights that some groups of healthcare students, including those studying pharmacy, physiotherapy and radiography, sustain sharps injuries from similar devices as reported in research on such injuries in nursing, medical and nursing students. Sharps injuries happen in a range of healthcare environments, and many were not reported by students. The main cause of a sharps injury identified was a lack of knowledge.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed on the extent of sharps injuries in healthcare students in European countries and the UK as well as on their physical and psychological effects. Education and training in sharps use and disposal are essential.

Evaluating occupational exposures of dental nurses: A retrospective study

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate occupational blood-borne pathogen exposure among dental nurses and their attitudes toward infected patients, as well as the effectiveness of the training course, to provide a scientific basis for improving the quality of safety management in the dental hospital.

Materials and methods

The study was conducted using questionnaires administered from November 2019 to December 2019 in three hospitals in Sichuan Province, China. Frequencies for answers were calculated and presented as percentages.

Results

In total, 257 valid questionnaires were returned. Most (61.9%) nurses stated that they were involved in occupational exposure. Among them, 154 had experienced sharp injuries, and the syringe needle was the most common instrument for injuries (45.8%). Twenty-two individuals had mucosal exposure, and the proportion of eye exposure was the highest (90.9%). Only associations between training and mucosal membrane exposure were found; however, the relevance was weak (r = 0.141). Of the participants, 86.4% felt morally responsible for taking care of patients with infectious diseases, and most (92.6%) said they would continue with this career.

Conclusion

Occupational exposure, particularly to sharp injuries, was common in medical care among dental nurses; however, vocational training had little effect on their incidence. As dental nurses still have positive attitudes toward patients with infectious diseases, more effective training should be conducted.

Vaccinating Front-Line Healthcare Workers: Results of a Pre-Pandemic Cross-Sectional Study from North-Eastern Italy on First Responders

First responders are front-line healthcare workers who are potentially exposed to different infectious agents. Characterizing their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards immunization, therefore, has the potential to significantly improve occupational health and safety. A cross-sectional study was performed in October 2018 using a sample of 161 first responders from the Parma Province (mean age 45.1 ± 14.1 years; seniority 10.8 ± 8.6 years). The participants were questioned on three recommended vaccinations (i.e., the seasonal influenza, measles, and pertussis vaccines) and on meningococcal vaccines (not officially recommended for first responders). The participant’s knowledge status and risk perception were assessed as percentage values through a specifically designed questionnaire. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for factors associated with vaccination status were calculated by means of a binary logistic regression analysis. The internal consistency result, calculated using a general knowledge test, was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.894), but the corresponding score was unsatisfying (46.5% ± 32.4), evidencing uncertainties surrounding the recommendations for measles and meningococcal vaccines (39.1% and 34.2% incorrect answers, respectively). While the large majority of respondents were favorable towards the meningococcal (89.4%), measles (87.5%), and pertussis vaccines (83.0%), 55.3% exhibited a favorable attitude toward the seasonal influenza vaccine, the uptake of which in 2018, was reported by 28.0% of respondents, compared to the self-reported lifetime status for meningitis (26.1%), measles (42.2%), and pertussis (34.8%). Not coincidentally, all assessed infections were associated with a low-risk perception score, particularly influenza (33.9% ± 18.4). Interestingly enough, neither knowledge status nor risk perception were associated with vaccination rates. More precisely, the main predictor for being vaccinated against seasonal influenza in 2018 was a seniority of ≥10 years (aOR 3.26, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.35–7.91), while both pertussis and measles were positively associated with higher educational achievement (aOR 3.27, 95%CI 1.29–8.30; and aOR 2.69, 95%CI 1.09–6.65, respectively). The reasons for vaccination gaps among the sampled first responders, apparently, did not find their roots in inappropriate knowledge status and risk perception alone. However, the very low rates of sampled immunization lead us to recommend stronger and more appropriate information campaigns.