Non-Safety and Safety Device Sharp Injuries-Risk of Incidents, SEDs Availability, Attitudes and Perceptions of Nurses According to Cross-Sectional Survey in Poland

Sharp injuries are a serious issue among healthcare workers (HCWs). The aim of the study was to examine the frequency of sharps injuries among nurses (who have the most frequent contact with infectious material) when using devices with and without safety features, then to analyse the factors associated with such injuries and to compare the risk of injuries with safety engineered devices (SEDs) and non-safety engineered devices (non-SEDs). An online cross-sectional survey was completed between October 2021 and March 2022 by 280 nurses. The incidence of exposure to sharp injury during their professional life was 51.4%. The percentage of nurses experiencing a sharp injury in the year preceding the study was 29% and 9.6% for superficially and deep injury, respectively. Ampoules and conventional hollow-bore needles caused the most injuries (25.92% and 22.64% of nurses in the last year). Factors including sex (males), age and seniority (elderly), education (higher), work exhaustion and being left-handed were associated with the occurrence of conventional hollow-bore needle injuries. In the case of SEDs: age, seniority and right/left-handed were the most frequent risk factors associated with the occurrence of sharp injuries. SEDs injuries were much less frequent than non-SEDs. There was a significant difference between the risk of injuries with safety and non-safety needles, central cannulas and ampoules. Fisher's exact test (p-value = 0.000) and positive Spearman's rho statistics (0.2319, p-value = 0.0001) confirmed that in accredited hospitals, the availability of safety needles was higher. Almost half of the nurses (n = 115, 41.07%) stated that staff had little influence on the type of medical sharp instruments supplied. To reduce the risk of nurse injuries, access to medical devices with safe protection mechanisms should be ensured, the use of sharp instruments should be limited where possible, managers should consult nurses regarding the choice of safe devices, and training programs on the proper use of SEDs should be available.

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.

Causes of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries When Using Devices with and without Safety Features

Safety-engineered devices (SEDs) have been developed to protect healthcare personnel (HCP) from needlestick and sharps injuries (NSIs). The aim of this study was to analyze NSIs associated with SEDs and non-SEDs among HCP in hospitals, medical offices and care facilities. Records from online questionnaires on NSIs were used. Causes of NSIs were compared for SED use and healthcare setting. A sample of 835 files was included. Injuries with SEDs accounted for 35.0% of all NSIs, whereas the proportions were higher in medical offices and lower in care facilities. NSIs in nurses were more often associated with SEDs than NSIs in physicians. NSIs from intravenous needles were associated with SEDs in more than 60% of cases in hospitals and medical offices and in about 30.0% of cases in care facilities. In contrast, suturing was associated with every fourth NSI in hospitals, of which fewer than 10.0% were associated with SEDs. In care facilities, SEDs were involved in 36.1% of NSIs during subcutaneous injections. NSIs during disposal accounted for 29.2% of total NSIs, of which 36.1% were associated with SEDs. Frequent reasons for SED-associated NSIs were technical problems, unexpected patient movement and problems during disposal. Our analysis shows that many NSIs are associated with SEDs. Continuous training is necessary in the handling and disposal of SEDs.

Education and devices to prevent blood and body fluid exposures

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers are at risk of blood and body fluid exposures (BBFE) while delivering care to patients. Despite recent technological advances such as safety-engineered devices (SEDs), these injuries continue to occur in healthcare facilities worldwide.

AIMS

To assess the impact of an education and SEDs workplace programme on rates of reported exposures.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study, utilizing interrupted time series analysis to examine reported exposures between 2005 and 2015 at a 600-bed hospital in Perth, Western Australia. The hospital wards were divided into four cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 2223 records were available for analysis. The intervention was most effective for the first cohort, with significant improvements both short-term (reduction of 12 (95% CI 7-17) incidents per 1000 full-time equivalent (FTE) hospital staff) and long-term (reduction of 2 (CI 0.6-4) incidents per 1000 FTE per year). Less significant or consistent impacts were observed for the other three cohorts. Overall, the intervention decreased BBFE exposure rates at the hospital level from 19 (CI 18-20) incidents per 1000 FTE pre-intervention to 11 (CI 10-12) incidents per 1000 FTE post-intervention, a 41% reduction. No exposures resulted in a blood-borne virus infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was most effective in reducing exposures at a time when incidence rates were increasing. The overall effect was short-term and did not further reduce an already stabilized trend, which was likely due to improved safety awareness and practice, induced by the first cohort intervention.

UK safety-engineered device use: changes since the 2013 sharps regulations

BACKGROUND

The 2013 UK sharps safety regulations require healthcare facilities to use safety-engineered devices (SEDs) to protect staff. The recent increase in UK-reported occupational exposures could indicate increased reporting or increased exposures from suboptimal SED use.

AIMS

To ascertain SED use through examination of sharps container contents in a sample of UK hospitals.

METHODS

Reusable sharps containers (RSCs) were selected from seven UK hospitals in 2013 and seven different hospitals in 2016. At licensed processing facilities, the operator, wearing protective apparel, decanted RSCs, separated hollow-bore needles (HBNs) from other sharps and enumerated HBNs into capped/uncapped non-SEDs, activated/non-activated/tampered SEDs, and blunt draw-up SEDs. Probability, risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence limits (95% CLs) were calculated using WinPepi v2.78.

RESULTS

In 2013 and 2016, respectively, 2545 HBNs were categorized from 22 RSCs versus 2959 HBNs from 33 RSCs; 70% of HBNs were SEDs versus 93% (P < 0.001; RR 1.33; CL 1.30-1.37); 32% of activatable HBNs were not activated versus 22% (<0.001; 0.67; 0.60-0.76); 41% of HBNs were discarded 'sharp' versus 20% (<0.001; 0.48; 0.44-0.52); 25% of HBNs were uncapped needles versus 6% (<0.001; 0.22; 0.19-0.26); 5% of HBNs were capped needles versus 1% (P > 0.05); and 1% of SEDs were tampered with in both years (P > 0.05). Hospital practices varied widely.

CONCLUSIONS

SED use and activation have increased significantly since 2013. Of concern is that in 2016, 22% of SEDs were non-activated and 20% of sharps were discarded 'sharp'. Increased training in SED handling, assiduous adherence to safe sharps work practices and a higher level of individual safety-ownership are indicated.

Clinical, economic, and humanistic burden of needlestick injuries in healthcare workers

Introduction

Needlestick injuries (NSIs) from a contaminated needle put healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk of becoming infected with a blood-borne virus and suffering serious short- and long-term medical consequences. Hypodermic injections using disposable syringes and needles are the most frequent cause of NSIs.

Objective

To perform a systematic literature review on NSI and active safety-engineered devices for hypodermic injection.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases were searched for studies that evaluated the clinical, economic, or humanistic outcomes of NSI or active safety-engineered devices.

Results

NSIs have been reported by 14.9%–69.4% of HCWs with the wide range due to differences in countries, settings, and methodologies used to determine rates. Exposure to contaminated sharps is responsible for 37%–39% of the worldwide cases of hepatitis B and C infections in HCWs. HCWs may experience serious emotional effects and mental health disorders after a NSI, resulting in work loss and post-traumatic stress disorder. In 2015 International US$ (IntUS$), the average cost of a NSI was IntUS$747 (range IntUS$199–1,691). Hypodermic injections, the most frequent cause of NSI, are responsible for 32%–36% of NSIs. The use of safety devices that cover the needle-tip after hypodermic injection lowers the risk of NSI per HCW by 43.4%–100% compared to conventional devices. The economic value of converting to safety injective devices shows net savings, favorable budget impact, and overall cost-effectiveness.

Conclusion

The clinical, economic, and humanistic burden is substantial for HCWs who experience a NSI. Safety-engineered devices for hypodermic injection demonstrate value by reducing NSI risk, and the associated direct and indirect costs, psychological stress on HCWs, and occupational blood-borne viral infection risk.

[Safety-engineered devices in medical office]

Safety-engineered devices in medical office. Safety-engineered devices are designed to inactivate the needle or the blade after completion of an invasive procedure and before device disposal, in order to prevent needlestick injuries. Safety-engineered devices include manual (bi or uni manual) activation devices, semi-automatic, and automatic activation devices with an increasing security level provided against needlestick injuries risk. This paper briefly describes the different types of safety-engineered devices available in the medical office setting.