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.

Closing the loop between evidence-based medicine and care delivery: a possible role for clinical audits in spinal surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) should be the ultimate force driving change in clinical practice. This process generally occurs through a trickle-down phenomenon by which practice recommendations are revised, modified, and/or changed based on the best published data. Recommendations are subsequently incorporated by individual physicians. The fundamental assumption that drives this paradigm is that adopting evidence-based recommendations and/or treatment guidelines will result in improved outcomes. Unfortunately, to date, the paradigm does not have an effective feedback loop that would then evaluate whether the changes did, in fact, improve outcomes.

PURPOSE

To explore the process of clinical audits as a mechanism by which to provide a feedback loop to evaluate the results of spinal surgery on an individual basis and whether those results can be improved.

STUDY DESIGN

Review article, discussion.

METHODS

A literature review of the current data regarding clinical audits was performed, and a discussion of how they may apply to spinal surgery is offered.

RESULTS

Clinical audits have been used outside the United States, particularly in the United Kingdom, to fulfill this function. A clinical audit would allow a practicing spinal surgeon to examine his or her individual experience and determine if it is achieving the expected outcome based on published results. In the most important feature of a clinical audit, the reaudit, if an individual's results are found to be inconsistent with published results, it presents an opportunity to identify if there are reconcilable differences from which potential improvements can be made. Effectively, this "closes the loop" between EBM and actual clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Documenting improved outcomes through the audit process can impact spinal care in several ways. Patients would receive a clear message that their doctors are interested in improving care. Hospitals will use the information to optimize treatment algorithms. Finally, insurers might make the audit process more tenable or attractive by indicating a physician's voluntary participation as a criterion to be a preferred provider.