Keywords
safety catheter devices
needlestick injury
Abstract
Health care workers who use or may be exposed to needles are at increased risk of needlestick injuries which can lead to serious infections with bloodborne pathogens. These injuries can be avoided by eliminating the unnecessary use of needles, using safety devices. The present study was aimed at evaluating the impact of a safety-engineered device, with passive fully automatic needlestick protection, on the reduction of needlestick injuries among health care workers.Â
The setting of the study was a network of five public health care institutions situated in a Northern Italian Region. Data about the type of device, the number of employees and the amount of catheter devices used per year were collected through regular meetings with health care workers over a period of five years.
The most remarkable result of this study was represented by the huge risk reduction estimated for safety devices. Indeed, the risk of needlestick injuries due to conventional devices was found to be 25 fold higher than that observed for safety devices. However, it is noteworthy that a discernible part of this excess can be explained by the different background amount of devices used. Moreover, the descriptive analysis suggested that individuals with a poor/moderate training level showed a lower risk, albeit not statistically significant, than those with a good/high training.
In conclusion, there is a convincing evidence of a causal connection between the introduction of safety devices and reduction in the occurrence of needlestick injuries. This consideration pushes to introduce safety devices into daily clinical practice.
References
Jagger J, Perry J, Parker G, Phillips EK. Nursing2011 survey results: Blood exposure risk during peripheral I.V. catheter insertion and removal. Nursing. 2011;41:45-9.
Cho E, Lee H, Choi M, et al. Factors associated with needlestick and sharp injuries among hospital nurses: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud 2013;50:1025-32.
Riddell A, Kennedy I, Tong CY. Management of sharps injuries in the healthcare setting. BMJ. 2015 Jul 29;351:h3733. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3733.
Workbook for Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating a Sharps Injury Prevention Program, 2008. Centers for Dis-ease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/sharpssafety/pdf/WorkbookComplete.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2008.
Pruss-Ustun A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Sharps injuries: Global burden of disease from sharps injuries to health-care workers. World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/9241562463/en/. Accessed October 3, 2008.
Di Bari V, De Carli G, Puro V, et al. Prevention of accidental needle sticks before the Directive 2010/32/EU in a sample of Italian hospitals. Med Lav. 2015;106:186-205.
De Carli G, Abiteboul D, Puro V. The importance of implementing safe sharps practices in the laboratory setting in Europe. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014;24:45â56.
Puro V, De Carli G, Cicalini S, et al. European recommendations for the management of healthcare workers occupationally exposed to hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus. European Occupational Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Study Group. Euro Surveillance 2005;10:260â4.
Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens; Needle-stick and Other Sharps Injuries; Final Rule, 2001. US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=16265. Accessed October 3, 2008.
Directive 2000/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 18 september 2000 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual directive within the meaning of article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). The Council of European Communities. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:262:0021:0045:EN:PDF. Accessed October 2008.
Adams D, Elliott TSJ. Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four year prospective study. J Hosp Infect 2006;64:50-5.
American Nurses Association. ANAâs needlestick prevention guide. 2002. Available at www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/OccupationalandEnvironmental/occupationalhealth/SafeNeedles/NeedlestickPrevention.aspx.
Sossai D, Puro V, Chiappatoli L, et. al. Using an intravenous catheter system to prevent needlestick injury. Nur Stand 2010;24:42-6.
Hoffmann C, Buchholz L, Schnitzler P. Reduction of needlestick injuries in healthcare personnel at a university hospital using safety devices. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013 8:20. doi: 10.1186/1745-6673-8-20.
Whitby M, McLaws ML, Slater K. Needlestick injuries in a major teaching hospital: the worthwhile effect of hospital-wide replacement of conventional hollow-bore needles. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:180-6.
Fukuda H, Yamanaka N. Reducing needlestick injuries through safety-engineered devices: results of a Japanese multi-centre study. J Hosp Infect. 2016;92:147-53.
Lavoie MC, Verbeek JH, Pahwa M. Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009740.pub2.
Trim JC. A review of needleprotective devices to prevent sharps injuries. Br J Nurs 2004;13:144-53.
Wilburn SQ. Needlestick and sharps injury prevention. Online J Issues Nurs 2004;9:3-5.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software. Release 11.2. Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, 2007.
Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers. 1998.
Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998.
Prunet B, Meaudre E, Montcriol A, et al. A prospective randomized trial of two safety peripheral intravenous catheters. Anesth Analg 2008;107:155-8.