Combatting the occurrence of needle-stick injuries in a medical school: why is it still an issue?

BACKGROUND

Needle-stick injuries (NSIs) pose a safety risk for healthcare workers with great potential for serious infections. The aim was to determine numbers and causes of NSIs as well as the frequency with which medical students report NSIs in the final stages of study.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was developed and made available in January and February 2023 to all undergraduate medical students (n = 423) in the last 1.5 years of their degree course at Würzburg University, Germany.

RESULTS

The response rate was 19.6% (n = 84). Among respondents, 27.4% (n = 23) reported at least one NSI. Occurrence was particularly frequent in surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, and internal medicine. Assisting with procedures, suturing, and blood sampling were considered high-risk activities. Lack of concentration, distraction, and time pressure played a role in incidents. Respondents did not report 18.8% of NSIs with the main reasons being fear of the consequences, self-assessment of the injury as minor, or the opinion of supervisors that reporting was unnecessary. Students with previous practice on simulators or patients were significantly more likely to suffer NSIs. Instructions from occupational health specialists beforehand correlated with fewer NSIs.

CONCLUSION

We assume that trained students are more experienced in handling invasive procedures, leading to a greater adoption of corresponding activities and thus an increased risk of injuries in absolute numbers. This does not counter the need for didactic interventions prior to workplace-based training to raise awareness of NSI risks. Simultaneously, concepts must be developed and implemented to support reporting and alleviate fears regarding consequences.

Identifying Trends of Percutaneous Injuries at an Australian Dental School

Objectives

The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine trends in percutaneous exposure incidences (PEIs) at the School of Dentistry (SoD) from 2009 to 2019 and to report on the underreporting rate of PEIs, current attitudes, and awareness of PEI safety protocols from clinical staff and students at the SoD in 2019.

Methods

Retrospective data were collected from deidentified archival incident reports from 2009 to 2019 from the SoD's incident reporting system (UQSafe and Legacy Database). Additionally, cross-sectional data were collected via the validated Percutaneous Exposure Incident Questionnaires (PEIQ) completed by clinical staff and students of the SoD in 2019.

Results

From the archival data, the majority (79.9%) of the 618 reported PEIs involved students. Local anaesthetic-related procedures were the most common cause in the archival (31.5%) and survey data (23.7%), whereas the needle-prick was the most common causative instrument in both data sets. Additionally, the finger was the most common site of injury found in the archival (53.0%) and survey data (52.8%). From 345 responses to the survey, 42.1% of PEIs sustained were not reported.

Conclusions

Students were at a higher risk of sustaining a PEI than staff members between 2009 and 2019. The reported knowledge on PEI classification and preventative measures is inadequate, suggesting that further PEI education is necessary. The study provides evidence of the trends in PEIs as well as data on the attitudes and awareness of student and staff at a dental teaching faculty to support the development of PEI safety management protocols.

Awareness About Sharps Disposal Leads to Significant Improvement in Healthcare Safety: an Audit of Compliance in the National Health Service During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Needle-stick injuries (NSIs) pose serious health risks and can transmit blood-borne diseases (BBDs), such as hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and human immunodeficiency virus from the patient to the staff member. The purpose of this study was evaluation of appropriate and safe disposal of sharps within a 730-bed acute district general hospital (DGH) in the UK. One hundred sharps containers were audited in November 2019 to assess whether they complied with the health and safety regulations across surgical, medical, and acute wards. Meetings with the appropriate staff members were organised and posters placed throughout the hospital to raise awareness. One hundred twenty-five sharps containers were re-audited in July 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic to ascertain if there was an improvement. In November 2019, a total of 56% of sharps containers were overfilled and hence were non-compliant with safety regulations. A re-audit performed in July 2020 found only 17% of sharps containers to be overfilled, which was a significant improvement (p = 0.0064) in practice. We noted that the overall compliance improved from being 44% in 2019 to 82.64 in the year 2020. This audit showed a significant improvement in the compliance of sharps bin containers in a DGH, signifying the increased awareness. It is necessary to audit sharps management regularly to accurately assess practice and prevent exposure to BBDs.

Needle stick injuries in the community

When children sustain injuries from needles discarded in public places, concerns arise about possible exposure to blood-borne viruses. The risk of infection is low, but assessment, counselling, and follow-up of the injured child are needed. This statement reviews the literature concerning blood-borne viral infections after injuries from needles discarded in the community, and provides recommendations for the prevention and management of such incidents.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1705-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.