A survey of pain physicians: Needlesticks injuries

OBJECTIVE

To investigate and characterize the incidence of needlestick injuries (NSI) in a sample of practicing pain medicine physicians, with the ultimate goal of aiding to prevent these injuries by raising awareness of their prevalence.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional research survey.

SETTING

A REDCap survey was emailed to physicians who had membership to the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

SUBJECTS

Eligibility criteria included physicians who were actively practicing and identified as pain physicians who participated in procedures with needlesticks or sharps.

METHODS

Basic demographics without identifiers were collected, including practice setting, years in practice, and training type. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of sharps-involved procedure days per week and per day. They were then asked to estimate the number of NSIs they sustained since completing training and in the past year.

RESULTS

A total of 430 surveys were opened by email by potential participants, of which 124 responded (response rate 29%). Data from a total of 109 respondents that met inclusion criteria were included. Roughly 60% of respondents reported at least one NSI since completing training and approximately one-third had sustained more than three NSIs. In the last year, roughly 19% of providers reported at least one needlestick injury. The number of NSIs reported by providers since completing training was not significantly associated with practice setting, the number of procedure days per week, or the number of sharps-involved procedures per day. There was a significant relationship between years post-training and number of NSIs since completing training, with providers with more years post-training reporting higher incidences of NSIs (p < 0.0005). The number of NSIs since completing training and the number of NSIs were also associated, with providers that had sustained a greater number of total NSIs reporting a higher incidence of NSIs within the last year (p < 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

This study characterizes NSIs in a population of pain medicine physicians. These data warrant caution and will hopefully raise awareness amongst providers.

Evaluation of Surgical Glove Perforation and Sharps Injury in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Introduction

The risk of exposure to infections during surgery is partly mitigated by gloving. However, perforation can reduce the effectiveness of gloving as a barrier to exposure. This study aimed at investigating the frequency of surgical glove perforation and factors predictive of these in our oral and maxillofacial surgical practice.

Materials and Methods

The study was carried out at the National Hospital and the University of Abuja Teaching Hospital, Abuja, Nigeria. Consenting patients requiring oral surgical interventions were consecutively recruited into the study. Similarly, surgeons and their assistants who consented to the study were also enlisted in the study. At the end of every surgical procedure, gloves used by the surgeons and the assistants were tested for perforation. Variables investigated included the rate of perforations, the influence of the type of gloving, single versus double gloving, type of anaesthesia, and duration of surgery on rates.

Results

At a minimum of three operators per procedure, a total of 154 participants were involved in the study and 895 gloves were used. The number of glove perforations was 117(13.1%) with 82 (70.1%) involving the surgeons. There were 58/117 (49.6%) cases of perforation involving the dominant hand. Forefinger glove perforation accounted for 62 (52.9%) cases. Wire-related perforations were 72 (61.5%). Overall, nine cases of percutaneous injury were recorded. Duration of operation and double gloving were the predictive factors for perforations.

Conclusion

Risk of sharps injury was relatively high due to the high incidence of glove perforation.

Factors related to sharps injuries among students in a dental laboratory

Clarification of potential factors affecting the occurrence of accidental sharps injuries among students in dental laboratories would likely help to reduce the incidence of such injuries, thus improving dental education, as well as further preventing injury in general healthcare workspaces. In this study, undergraduates at the College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical University, were assessed for 10 items: gender, age, course specialty, whether or not framed glasses were worn during operations, speed of assignment completion, dominant hand, self-assessment of performance, whether or not students previewed the classes in advance, sleep duration, and sharps injury experience. The results suggested that course specialty and sleep duration were the major factors associated with the occurrence of sharps injuries among students in the dental laboratory.

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.

An Integrative Review of the Hands-Free Technique in the OR

Sharps injury rates are proportionally higher in perioperative areas than in other practice settings. The hands-free technique (HFT) has been shown to decrease the hazards of sharps injuries when passing sharps during surgery. We reviewed and synthesized research studies regarding compliance with the HFT and factors facilitating its use using a key word search of online databases and a secondary search of references. We reviewed English language studies published since 2001 regarding HFT compliance rates or related factors using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model and Guidelines. We found 14 articles reporting a wide range of HFT compliance rates (ie, 5% to 84%), which identified that a number of organizational factors and health care workers' perceptions of infection risks influenced the use of the HFT.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice of needle stick and sharps injuries among dental professionals of Bangalore, India

Background:

A needle stick injury (NSI) is an accidental skin-penetrating stab wound from a hollow-bore needle containing another person's blood or body fluid. Healthcare workers (HCWs) including dental professionals are at an occupational risk of exposure to blood-borne pathogens following NSIs and sharps injuries (SIs). A thorough understanding of the safe practices while handling needles and sharps is crucial for HCWs to create a risk-free work place environment.

Aims and Objectives:

To assess the knowledge, attitude, practice, and prevalence of NSIs and SIs among dental professionals in a dental college at Bangalore.

Materials and Methods:

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in September 2012 using a structured, pretested, guided interview-based questionnaire that was administered to 200 dental professionals in a dental college at Bangalore to assess the knowledge, attitude, practices, and self-report information of NSIs.

Results:

In the present study, 81.5% of dental professionals were vaccinated against hepatitis B. A total of 27.5% participants had an NSI during the previous 12 months. About 41.80% of NSIs occurred during device recapping. Most common reason for failure to report the incidents of NSIs, as declared by 29.09% of the participants, included the fear of being blamed or getting into trouble for having an NSI.

Conclusion:

The knowledge of dental professionals on NSIs and their preventive measures are inadequate; however, training on Universal Precaution Guidelines, protocols regarding post-exposure prophylaxis, and safety devices has to be provided to prevent such injuries in future among the dental professionals.

Sharps injury reduction: a six-year, three-phase study comparing use of a small patient-room sharps disposal container with a larger engineered container

A 350-bed Sydney hospital noted excessive container-associated sharps injuries (CASI) using small sharps containers and compared the effect from 2004 to 2010 of using a larger container engineered to reduce CASI. In Phase 1 (Ph1), disposable 1.4L containers (BD Australia) were carried to/from patients' rooms. In Phase 2 (Ph2), this stopped and a safety-engineered 32L reusable container (the Device; Sharpsmart, SteriHealth) was mounted in medication stations only and sharps were carried to and from patient rooms using kidney dishes. In Phase 3 (Ph3), the Device was wall-mounted in patient rooms. Sharps injuries were categorised as 'during-procedure', 'after-procedure but before disposal', 'CASI', and 'improper disposal SI'. Disposal-related SI comprised CASI plus improper-disposal SI. Injuries per 100 full-time-equivalent staff were analysed using Chi²; p ≤ 0.05; and relative risk and 95% confidence limits were calculated. In Ph1 (small containers) 19.4% of SI were CASI and transport injuries were zero. In Ph2 (Device in medication station) CASI fell 94.9% (p <0.001); Disposal-related SI fell 71.1% (p=0.002) but transport injuries rose significantly. In Ph3 (Device in patient room) zero CASI occurred (p<0.001); Disposal-related SI fell 83.1% (p=0.001). Recapping SI fell 85.1% (p=0.01) with the Device. The Device's volume, large aperture, passive overfill-protection and close-at-hand siting are postulated as SI reduction factors.

Surgeon's satisfaction on the use of invented needle magnet in reducing the risk of sharp injuries in the operating room

Background:

Healthcare workers, especially operating room personnel, are at increased risk for sharps injury and transmission of blood-borne pathogens as a result of their occupation. Infection with these pathogens occurs mainly by percutaneous or mucocutaneous exposure to blood-borne pathogens. This study evaluated the effectiveness of using invented needle magnet in reducing the risk of sharp injuries in the operating room.

Materials and Methods:

The needle magnet device is consisted of three parts: a cap, a magnet and a metal container. It was invented by the authors for the first time in Iran. The average weight of this device is 200 g and it can be easily placed near the surgery field or on the myostand. It has magnetic properties that attracts the sharp pointed particles during surgery and preserve them in a protected space. The device was used in surgical field by 33 surgeons during 90 surgical operations. Then, the satisfaction of participants and effectiveness of the device in protection against sharps injury was evaluated by a questionnaire.

Results:

Thirty-one surgeons (94%) believed that needle magnet reduces dispersion of sharp instruments; 79% of the participants suggested that our device reduces sharps injury during operation; 29 surgeons (88%) intended to use this device during operation. Thus, the use of needle magnet within surgical field may reduce the chances of sharps injury during surgery.

Conclusion:

The use of needle magnet within surgical field reduces the chance of sharp injury during surgery and the surgeons were satisfied with its use.

Occupational safety among dental health-care workers

Compared to other health-care workers, dental health-care workers come in close contact with patients and use a variety of sharp and high-speed rotating instruments. It is important to understand the characteristics of the occupational accidents that occur. We reviewed incident reports from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2010, at Matsumoto Dental University Hospital. In addition, questionnaires dealing with identification of occupational safety issues, especially splash exposures, were conducted for dentists, dental hygienists, and nurses. Thirty-two occupational injuries were reported during the study period, including 23 sharp instrument injuries (71.9%), 6 splash exposures (18.8%), and 3 others. Of the six splash exposures, only two cases involved potential contamination with blood or other potentially infectious patient material. Of the 66 workers who experienced sharps injuries, 20 workers (30.3%, 20/66) reported them to the hospital work safety team. The questionnaire revealed high incident of splash exposures and conjunctiva exposures: 87.9% (51/58) and 60.3% (35/58) in dentists and 88.6% (39/44) and 61.4% (27/44) in dental hygienists. The compliance rate for routine use of protective eyewear was 60.3% (35/58) for dentists and 34.1% (15/44) for hygienists. Of the presented informational items included in the questionnaire, those that strongly persuaded respondents to use protective eyewear were 'splatters from the patient's mouth contain blood' (90%, 99/110) and 'dental operations at our clinic are performed based only on a questionnaire without serious examinations for HBV, HCV, and HIV' (71.8%, 79/110). The reason of low compliance of protective eyewear among dentists might relate to fine dental procedures. Appropriate information is important for the motive of wearing personal protective equipment, and an early educational program may have a potential to increase compliance with the use of that equipment.