Mental health of healthcare workers who experience needlestick and sharps injuries

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are exposed daily to the risk of injury by needlesticks and other medical instruments. However, the psychiatric impacts of such injuries have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mental health status of HCWs with experiences of needlestick and sharps injuries. A cross-sectional written survey was performed. The psychological symptoms before injury and current status were measured using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The proportions of HCWs with and without needlestick and sharps injuries were 71.1% (n=263) and 28.9% (n=107), respectively. HAM-A and BDI scores were significantly higher among HCWs with injury experiences (p<0.01). HCWs with injury experiences exhibited higher PSS and BDI scores after the injury and higher levels of anxiety and depression. Particular attention should be directed towards the psychological consequences of needlestick and sharps injuries in HCWs.     

Prevalence and prevention of needlestick injuries among health care workers in a German university hospital

Objective Health care workers (HCWs) are exposed to bloodborne pathogens, especially hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through job-related risk factors like needlestick, stab, scratch, cut, or other bloody injuries. Needlestick injuries can be prevented by safer devices. Methods The purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency and causes of needlestick injuries in a German university hospital. Data were obtained by an anonymous, self-reporting questionnaire. We calculated the share of reported needlestick injuries, which could have been prevented by using safety devices. Results 31.4% (n = 226) of participant HCWs had sustained at least one needlestick injury in the last 12 months. A wide variation in the number of reported needlestick injuries was evident across disciplines, ranging from 46.9% (n = 91/194) among medical staff in surgery and 18.7% (n = 53/283) among HCWs in pediatrics. Of all occupational groups, physicians have the highest risk to experience needlestick injuries (55.1%—n = 129/234). Evaluating the kind of activity under which the needlestick injury occurred, on average 34% (n = 191/561) of all needlestick injuries could have been avoided by the use of safety devices. Taking all medical disciplines and procedures into consideration, safety devices are available for 35.1% (n = 197/561) of needlestick injuries sustained. However, there was a significant difference across various medical disciplines in the share of needlestick injuries which might have been avoidable: Pediatrics (83.7%), gynecology (83.7%), anesthesia (59.3%), dermatology (33.3%), and surgery (11.9%). In our study, only 13.2% (n = 74/561) of needlestick injuries could have been prevented by organizational measures. Conclusion There is a high rate of needlestick injuries in the daily routine of a hospital. The rate of such injuries depends on the medical discipline. Implementation of safety devices will lead to an improvement in medical staff’s health and safety.     

Needlestick injuries in a tertiary care centre in Mumbai, India

Accidental exposure from blood/body fluid of patients is a risk to healthcare workers (HCWs). Percutaneous injury is the most common method of exposure to blood-borne pathogens. A policy was formulated at our institute, a tertiary care centre in central Mumbai, and we report a six-year (1998--2003) ongoing surveillance of needlestick injuries. Of the 380 HCWs who reported needlestick injuries, 45% were nurses, 33% were attendants, 11% were doctors and 11% were technicians. On source analysis, 23, 15 and 12 were positive for Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), respectively. Immediate action following potential exposure included washing the wound with soap and water, encouraging bleeding and reporting the incident to the emergency room. Analysis of the source of injuries revealed that known sources accounted for 254 injuries, and unknown sources from garbage bags and Operating Theatre instruments accounted for 126 injuries. Most needlestick injuries occurred during intravenous line insertion (N=112), followed by blood collection (N=69), surgical blade injury (N=36) and recapping needles (N=36). Immediate postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HCWs who sustained injuries with hepatitis-B-virus-positive patients included booster hepatitis B immunization for those positive for antiHBs. A full course of immunization with hepatitis B immunoglobulin was given to those who were antiHBs negative. All staff who sustained injury with HIV were given immediate antiretroviral therapy (AZT 600 mg/day) for six weeks. Subsequent six-month follow-up showed zero seroconversion.     

Medical students' knowledge of sharps injuries

Healthcare workers (HCWs) including medical students are at risk of occupational exposure to blood-borne viruses following sharps incidents including needlestick injuries. The recent Department of Health guidelines recommend that all HCWs entering a career involving exposure-prone procedures should be tested for hepatitis C, making preventative strategies even more relevant. A survey of current medical students' knowledge regarding prevention of sharps injuries in Birmingham, UK was carried out to determine their awareness of these risks and to compare the findings with an earlier cohort of students. Two hundred and fifty-six medical students were enrolled into the study. Their knowledge of needlestick injury, prevention and management had significantly improved compared with the previous study. This demonstrates that intensive teaching and self-learning programmes can improve the knowledge of HCWs and reduce the number of needlestick injuries.     

Effect of the introduction of an engineered sharps injury prevention device on the percutaneous injury rate in healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of introducing an engineered device for preventing injuries from sharp instruments (engineered sharps injury prevention device [ESIPD]) on the percutaneous injury rate in healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We undertook a controlled, interventional, before-after study during a period of 3 years (from January 1998 through December 2000) at a major medical center. The study population was HCWs with potential exposure to bloodborne pathogens. HCWs who sustain a needlestick injury are required by hospital policy to report the exposure. A confidential log of these injuries is maintained that includes information on the date and time of the incident, the type and brand of sharp device involved, and whether an ESIPD was used. INTERVENTION: Introduction of an intravenous (IV) catheter stylet with a safety-engineered feature (a retractable protection shield), which was placed in clinics and hospital wards in lieu of other IV catheter devices that did not have safety features. No protective devices were present on suture needles during any of the periods. The incidence of percutaneous needlestick injury by IV catheter and suture needles was evaluated for 18 months before and 18 months after the intervention. RESULTS: After the intervention, the incidence of percutaneous injuries resulting from IV catheters decreased significantly (P<.01), whereas the incidence of injuries resulting from suture needle injuries increased significantly (P<.008). CONCLUSION: ESIPDs lead to a reduction in percutaneous injuries in HCWs, helping to decrease HCWs' risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens.     

The reporting of needlestick injuries sustained in theatre by surgeons: are we under-reporting?

Surgeons frequently sustain needlestick injuries when operating. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and reporting rate of needlestick injuries at one institution. A questionnaire was distributed anonymously to 69 surgeons of all grades and specialties in a district general hospital in the UK. The questionnaire was returned by 42 surgeons (60.9%). There were 840 needlestick injuries over two years, of which 126 caused bleeding. Senior surgeons who spent more hours operating per week had a higher rate of needlestick injuries compared with junior surgeons (29.1 vs 6.59 injuries per surgeon over two years). Of the total number of injuries, 19 (2.26%) were reported to Occupational Health according to the surgeons questioned, but only six reported incidents were found in the Occupational Health records. Junior surgeons were significantly more likely to report needlestick injuries than senior surgeons (9.82% vs 1.10% of injuries reported, P=0.0000045). The main reasons for failure to report needlestick injuries were due to the lack of time and excessive paperwork. Seventy-three percent of surgeons did not routinely use double gloves when operating, mainly because of decreased hand sensation. The rate of needlestick injury reporting by surgeons at this institution is extremely low. Previous studies have shown a higher reporting rate suggesting that, despite awareness of blood-borne infections, surgeons are still not following recommended protocols.     

医务人员职业损伤的研究分析

目的：研究分析医务人员因针头或其他尖锐器具造成损伤的发生率及其原因。方法：对610名医务人员进行问卷调查，被调查人员包括医生，护士，技师和实验工作人员。被调查者通过回顾的方式，如实填写过去一年内皮肤损伤的原因，次数及所采取的预防措施，回收有效问卷581份（95％），结果：在581名被调查者中，共发生1811例次皮肤务污染事件，其中54％是被污染血液后的内孔针头引起的，医务人员清楚地了解，有13％的病人患有乙肝，丙肝，梅毒，艾滋病等可以通过血液传播的疾病，每名医师（技师）每年有2．85次皮肤损伤几率，每名护士每年有3．4次皮肤损伤几率,所有的损伤事故发生后，均采用强力碘等消毒伤口，并有针对性地采取大量盐水冲洗，注射乙肝疫苗，高效免疫球蛋白等措施，结论：医务人员的这种损伤与他们的特殊职业有密切的关联，54％的损伤是在内孔针头充满血液的情况下造成的，具有很高的传播疾病的危险性，因此，应采取针对性的防护安全教育，预防事故发生。     

Needlestick injuries to the feet of Japanese healthcare workers: a culture-specific exposure risk.

A comparison of needlestick injury surveillance data from Japan and the United States revealed a higher proportion of foot injuries to Japanese healthcare workers (HCWs), compared with US HCWs. This study investigates the underlying factors that contribute to this difference and proposes evidence-based prevention strategies to address the risk, including the use of safety-engineered needle devices, point-of-use disposal containers for sharp instruments and devices, and closed-toe footwear.     

Estimated cost of needlestick injuries for six major needled devices

A major factor in the introduction of new products designed to decrease the risk of needlesticks to healthcare workers (HCWs) is whether the increased expense of a safer device is offset by the savings of preventing needlesticks. The itemized costs of needlestick injuries associated with six major needled devices were estimated and compared to the cost of the devices causing the injuries, based on 1988 dollars. Included was the cost of treatment, prophylaxis and employee health department personnel time. The average cost of needlestick injury was $405, with a narrow range of $390 to $456 for different devices. As a percent of the cost of the devices, needlesticks cost as little as 10% of the cost of the device, for the intravenous (IV) catheter, to as much as 457%, for needles used to connect IV lines. On the average, needlesticks cost 36% of the devices' cost. These data may be used to weigh the potential economic benefits of safer needle technology or other strategies intended to reduce the incidence of needlesticks.     

The use of metal or plastic needles in continuous subcutaneous infusion in a hospice setting

OBJECTIVES: Battery-driven portable syringe drivers are a convenient method for administering many drugs by continuous subcutaneous infusion (CSCI) to patients who cannot swallow medications. At the St. Clare Hospice, nurses usually use plastic needles to minimize needlestick injury but sometimes have patients transferred to metal needles. This study retrospectively examines this practice and its effectiveness. METHODS: The duration of audit was four months. During this period, there were 40 patients (23 women, 17 men), who required their medications delivered by CSCI. A total number of 74 sites were used. Metal or plastic needle CSCIs connected with one-hour release Graseby Syringe Drivers were used. The syringes were set to deliver 2 mm/hour. The maximum volume syringe used was 50 ml. The data were collected retrospectively. Analysis and results. Sixteen patients (21.6 percent) developed minor complications (13 plastic, three metal). Among them, 16 showed inflammation. Two patients (3.5 percent) showed slight bleeding. Only one patient (1.7 percent) showed local infection (metal). In 14 patients (18.9 percent), the needle was reinserted due to various reasons, including needles pulled out by patients or needles falling out due to unknown reasons. There were no needlestick injuries reported, and the staff members reported that all problems encountered were easy to identify and resolve. CONCLUSION: Plastic needle CSCI prevents needlestick injury and gives minimum distress to the patients. More research is needed to determine the local side effects of drugs used and the strategies to resolve these problems.     

Impact of a shielded safety syringe on needlestick injuries among healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the impact of a shielded 3 cc safety syringe on needlestick injuries among healthcare workers. DESIGN: Surveillance study. SETTING: Three medical centers. RESULTS: The total number of needlesticks from all sources rose from 134 during the baseline period to 140 during the study phase. However, the overall rate of needlesticks involving 3 cc syringes decreased from 14/100,000 inventory units to 2/100,000, and the frequency declined substantially at each of the participating medical centers. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that shielded syringes and related technology may offer potential for reducing the risk of needlestick injuries among hospital and other healthcare employees. This study should be viewed as a preliminary effort to assess the potential of shielded-syringe technology for reducing the risk of needlestick injuries among healthcare workers. The results are encouraging, but more clinical experience with this new device and longer follow up are essential to provide the data necessary for a definitive assessment of efficacy.     

Blood‐borne viruses and their survival in the environment: is public concern about community needlestick exposures justified?

BACKGROUND: More than 30 million needle syringes are distributed per year in Australia as a component of harm-reduction strategies for injecting drug users (IDU). Discarded needle syringes create considerable anxiety within the community, but the extent of needlestick injuries and level of blood-borne virus transmission risk is unclear. We have undertaken a review of studies of blood-borne virus survival as the basis for advice and management of community needlestick injuries. METHODS: A Medline review of published articles on blood-borne virus survival and outcome from community injuries. RESULTS: Hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can all survive outside the human body for several weeks, with virus survival influenced by virus titer, volume of blood, ambient temperature, exposure to sunlight and humidity. HBV has the highest virus titers in untreated individuals and is viable for the most prolonged periods in needle syringes stored at room temperature. However, prevalence of HBV and HIV are only 1-2% within the Australian IDU population. In contrast, prevalence of HCV is 50-60% among Australian IDUs and virus survival in needle syringes has been documented for prolonged periods. There have been no published cases of blood-borne virus transmission following community needlestick injury in Australia. CONCLUSION: The risk of blood-borne virus transmission from syringes discarded in community settings appears to be very low. Despite this, procedures to systematically follow up individuals following significant needlestick exposures sustained in the community setting should be developed.     

Work schedule, needle use, and needlestick injuries among registered nurses.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between working conditions and needlestick injury among registered nurses. We also describe needle use and needlestick injuries according to nursing position, workplace, and specialty. DESIGN: Three-wave longitudinal survey conducted between November 2002 and April 2004. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A probability sample of 2,624 actively licensed registered nurses from 2 states in the United States. Follow-up rates for waves 2 and 3 were 85% and 86%, respectively. Respondents who had worked as a nurse during the past year (n=2,273) prior to wave 1 were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Of the nurses, 15.6% reported a history of needlestick injury in the year before wave 1, and the cumulative incidence by wave 3 was 16.3%. The estimated number of needles used per day was significantly related to the odds of sustaining a needlestick injury. Hours worked per day, weekends worked per month, working other than day shifts, and working 13 or more hours per day at least once a week were each significantly associated with needlestick injuries. A factor combining these variables was significantly associated with needlestick injuries even after adjustment for job demands, although this association was somewhat explained by physical job demands. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in protecting workers from needlestick injuries, extended work schedules and their concomitant physical demands are still contributing to the occurrence of injuries and illnesses to nurses. Such working conditions, if modified, could lead to further reductions in needlestick injuries.     

Implication of the prevalence of needlestick injuries in a general hospital in Malaysia and its risk in clinical practice

Objectives  To determine the prevalence of cases and episodes of needlestick injury among three groups of health care workers in the past one-year, the level of knowledge on blood-borne diseases and universal precautions and the practice of universal precautions. Other factors associated with the occurrence of needlestick injuries and the reporting of needlestick injuries were also analysed. Methods  A cross-sectional study was conducted in May 2003 to study the needlestick injuries among 285 health care workers (doctors, nurses, medical students) in a public teaching hospital in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. Results  The prevalence of needlestick injuries among the respondents was 24.6% involving 71 cases i.e. 48.0% among doctors, 22.4% among medical students, and 18.7% among nurses and the difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). There were a total of 174 episodes of needlestick injury. Prevalence of episode of needlestick injuries was highest among doctors (146%), followed by nurses (50.7%) and medical students (29.4%). Cases of needlestick injuries attained lower scores on practice of universal precautions compared to non-cases (p<0.001). About 59% of cases of needlestick injury did not report their injuries. Conclusions  The study showed that needlestick injuries pose a high risk to health care workers and it is underreported most of the time. Many needlestick injuries can be prevented by strictly following the practice of universal precautions.     

Needlestick injury: impact of a recapping device and an associated education program

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the introduction of a plastic shield-shaped device (Needleguard, Biosafe, Auckland, New Zealand) and education program designed to allow safer recapping, on recorded rates of needlestick injury. DESIGN: A before-after trial with a two-year duration of follow-up. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Nursing and other hospital personnel. RESULTS: Prospectively collected baseline data, together with the results of an anonymous questionnaire of 25% of the hospital nursing staff, defined a reported needlestick injury rate of 6.9 per hundred full-time nursing staff per year. In the pre-intervention period, there were 6.7 needlestick injuries per 100 nursing staff members per year reported. This increased to 15.4 (p less than .0001) needlestick injuries per 100 nursing staff members per year after the intervention. An anonymous survey undertaken at both time periods suggests that the apparent increase in officially reported needlestick injuries is due to an increase in the willingness of nurses to now report previously unreported needlestick injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of the safety device and education program was the more accurate reporting of needlestick injuries; many nursing staff continued to resheath needles contrary to hospital policy. Many staff simply did not use the newly designed safety device. Approaches to improving compliance with such safety devices are considered.     

Reported needlestick and sharp injuries among health care workers in a Greek general hospital

Between July 1990 and June 1996, 284 exposures to infectious material were reported by 247 health care workers (HCWs) at AHEPA University Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece, representing an overall rate of 2.4% reported injuries per 100 HCWs/year. Nurses reported the highest rates of incidents (3.0%) and in all but one working group women exhibited higher injury rates per year than male HCWs. Young workers (21-30 years old) were primarily affected in incidents (P < 0.001). Needles were the most common implement causing injury (60.6%) and resheathing of used needles as well as garbage collection were common causes of injury. None of the HCWs seroconverted in exposures where immune status to blood-borne pathogens was estimated. Efforts by the infection control committee need to be more intense, in order to increase the rate of reported staff injuries. This will facilitate identification of unsafe practices and provide more adequate preventive measures.     

Potential for reported needlestick injury prevention among healthcare workers through safety device usage and improvement of guideline adherence: expert panel assessment

A prospective survey was conducted over six months in order to estimate the proportion of reported occupational needlestick injuries sustained by National Health Service (NHS) Scotland staff that could have been prevented through either safety device introduction, improved guideline adherence, guideline revision or a combination of these. This survey involved the administration of a standard proforma to healthcare workers followed by an expert panel assessment. All acute and primary care NHS Scotland trusts, the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service were included. Proforma and expert panel assessment data were available for 64% of injuries (952/1497) reported by healthcare staff. These injuries were all percutaneous. The expert panel concluded that: 56% of all injuries and 80% of venepuncture/injection administration injuries would probably/definitely have been prevented through safety device usage, 52% of all injuries and 56% of venepuncture/injection administration injuries would probably/definitely have been prevented through guideline adherence and 72% of all injuries and 88% of venepuncture/injection administration injuries would probably/definitely have been prevented through either intervention. Multi-factorial analysis indicated that injuries sustained through venepuncture/injection administration were significantly more likely to be prevented through safety device usage [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 5.09, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.11-8.31 and adjusted OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.64-4.45, respectively], and significantly less likely to be prevented through guideline adherence (adjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.60 and adjusted OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.78, respectively). Injuries sustained after completing procedures were significantly more likely to be prevented through safety device usage and guideline adherence. The study's findings support the need for improvements to staff's adherence to needlestick injury guidelines and appropriate implementation of safety devices for venepuncture and injection administration.