Effect of bedside needle disposal units on needle recapping frequency and needlestick injury

Needle recapping has been shown to be one of the leading causes of needlestick injuries. Frequency of recapping has not been reported. This study was designed to determine the frequency of needle recapping by nursing personnel and the effect of bedside needle disposal units on the frequency of recapping and needlesticks. Seventy-four nurses carrying out 312 activities involving use of needles were observed. The subjects were not aware of the nature of the study. The recapping frequency was 93.9%. The study was repeated after educational programs and following installation of a hospital-wide bedside needle disposal system. Fifty-three nurses performing 151 activities with needles were observed. Frequency of recapping was 94%. There was no significant difference in the rate of recapping or needlestick injuries after installation of the new needle disposal system. Educational programs regarding recapping, a very common practice, may be ineffective. Alternate methods for preventing needlesticks may be necessary.     

A five-year study of needlestick injuries: significant reduction associated with communication, education, and convenient placement of sharps containers.

OBJECTIVE: To decrease the numbers of needlesticks among healthcare workers. DESIGN: All reported needlestick injuries at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California, were reviewed, analyzed, and tabulated by the infection control department yearly from 1986 to 1990. SETTING: A 588-bed county teaching hospital in San Jose, California, affiliated with Stanford University. PARTICIPANTS: All employees of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center who reported needlestick injuries on injury report forms. INTERVENTIONS: From April to December 1987, more needle disposal containers were added to as many patient care areas and as close to the area of use as possible. Results of 1986, 1988, 1989, and 1990 analyses were communicated yearly to all personnel, extensive educational programs were conducted in 1987 and 1988, and educational efforts continued in 1989 and 1990. RESULTS: In 1986, there were 259 needlestick injuries at our institution, 22% (32) from recapping. After needle disposal containers were added to all patient care areas, needlestick injuries for 1988 totalled 143, a 45% decrease in the total needlestick injuries and a 53% decrease in recapping injuries. Communication of results to all areas of the hospital and educational activities were started in 1987 and continued through the next 3 years. In 1989, there were 135 needlestick injuries, a decrease of 6% from 1988; recapping injuries decreased 40% from 1988. In 1990, there were 104 needlestick injuries, a 23% decrease since 1989, and a 33% decrease in recapping injuries. The total number of needlestick injuries from 1986 to 1990 decreased by 60%, and those injuries from recapping decreased by 81% to 89%. CONCLUSIONS: We have continued to monitor needlestick injuries, communicate findings to all personnel, and include needlestick prevention in educational programs. We contend that more convenient placement of needle disposal containers, communication of findings, and education do decrease needlestick injuries in healthcare workers.     

Costs and benefits of measures to prevent needlestick injuries in a university hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To document the costs and the benefits (both in terms of costs averted and of injuries averted) of education sessions and replacement of phlebotomy devices to ensure that needle recapping did not take place. DESIGN: The percentage of recapped needles and the rate of needlestick injuries were evaluated in 1990 and 1997, from a survey of transparent rigid containers in the wards and at the bedside and from a prospective register of all injuries in the workplace. Costs were computed from the viewpoint of the hospital. Positive costs were those of education and purchase of safer phlebotomy devices; negative costs were the prophylactic treatments and follow-up averted by the reduction in injuries. SETTING: A 1,050-bed tertiary-care university hospital in the Paris region. RESULTS: Between the two periods, the proportion of needles seen in the containers that had been recapped was reduced from 10% to 2%. In 1990, 127 needlestick (12.7/100,000 needles) and 52 recapping injuries were reported versus 62 (6.4/100,000 needles) and 22 in 1996 and 1997. When the rates were related to the actual number of patients, the reduction was 76 injuries per year. The total cost of information and preventive measures was $325,927 per year. The cost-effectiveness was $4,000 per injury prevented. CONCLUSION: Although preventive measures taken to ensure reduction of needlestick injuries appear to have been effective (75% reduction in recapping and 50% reduction in injuries), the cost of the safety program was high.     

An effective educational program to reduce the frequency of needle recapping

We developed an educational program that reported the rate of needle recapping to healthcare workers, in conjunction with emphasis on appropriate disposal procedures. Over 12 months, the rate of recapping needles used for venipuncture and for percutaneous medication injections fell from 61% to 16% (p less than .0001). Over the same period, the recapping of needles used primarily for intravenous (IV) administration fell from 44% to 33% (p = .03). Re-evaluation of the rate of recapping eight months later showed a continuation of these lowered rates. Needlestick injuries were too few in number during the study period to detect any change accompanying the decreased recapping rate. We conclude that programs that report back to employees their rate of recapping can significantly reduce this activity in the disposal of needles used for venipuncture and for percutaneous medication injections. While such reporting may reduce the rate of recapping of needles used for IV administration, the effect is not nearly so marked. Modifications in design remain the most promising approach to preventing needlestick injuries from recapping needles used for IV administration.     

Effect of educational programs, rigid sharps containers, and universal precautions on reported needlestick injuries in healthcare workers

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of infection control programs on reported needlestick injuries in a general hospital. DESIGN: Surveillance of all reported needlestick injuries at the University of Cincinnati Hospital was maintained by the infection control department for five years, from 1985 through 1989. Data on individual workers were collected, tabulated on a monthly basis, and reviewed continually to monitor trends in injuries. During this time, the effects of each of three new infection control programs on reported injuries were evaluated sequentially. SETTING: A 700-bed general hospital that serves as the main teaching hospital of the University of Cincinnati. PARTICIPANTS: All employees of University Hospital who reported to personnel health for management of needlestick injuries. INTERVENTIONS: In 1986, an educational program to prevent injuries was initiated and continued throughout the surveillance period. In 1987, rigid sharps disposal containers were placed in all hospital rooms. In 1988, universal precautions were introduced with an intensive inservice. RESULTS: Surveillance identified 1,602 needlestick injuries (320/year) or 104/1,000/year. After the educational program began, reported injuries increased rather than decreased, and this was attributed to increased reporting. Subsequently, after installation of the new disposal containers, reported injuries returned to the levels seen prior to the educational program, but recapping injuries showed a significant decrease from 63/year to 30, or 20/1,000/year to 10. This decrease was observed in nurses but not in other healthcare workers. After universal precautions were instituted, total injuries increased slightly, but recapping injuries remained at 50% of the levels reported prior to the use of rigid sharps disposal containers. CONCLUSIONS: The three infection control programs failed to produce a major reduction in reported needlestick injuries, except for a decrease in recapping injuries associated with the placement of rigid sharps disposal containers in all patient rooms. These observations indicate that new approaches are needed to reduce needlestick injuries.     

应用信息化技术调查护生针刺伤现状

目的了解护生针刺伤发生现状,探讨有效的职业暴露应对策略。方法回顾性调查某院2016—2018年临床实习护生针刺伤发生情况。护生在进入临床实习前,统一登记基本资料,并对其进行感染预防及控制相关知识培训,告知护生发生针刺伤后应经蓝蜻蜓医院感染实时监控管理系统上报。通过蓝蜻蜓系统导出护生针刺伤相关数据进行统计、分析。结果共调查2 099名护生,其中男生256名,女生1 843名;大专生1 117名,本科生921名,国内硕士研究生34名,外籍硕士研究生27名。发生针刺伤232例次,针刺伤发生率为11.05%。不同性别、学历、实习阶段、科室护生针刺伤发生率比较差异有统计学意义(均P0.05)。在操作环节分布上,分离针头、拔针和回套针帽时针刺伤所占比率分别为28.88%、21.55%和18.10%。在暴露源的分布上,HBV和梅毒分别占21.12%、6.90%。在暴露场所分布上,发生在病房的针刺伤占32.33%。结论该院护生针刺伤发生率较低,但女性实习生、学历较低者、实习第一阶段、分离针头时、回套针帽时针刺伤发生率较高。应加强安全注射规范化培训,制定个性化培训方案等。     

Influence of an educational program and mechanical opening needle disposal boxes on occupational needlestick injuries.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an educational program had a beneficial impact on healthcare worker needlestick injuries, particularly those caused by recapping. Secondary goals were to evaluate the efficacy of in-room needle-boxes and to determine whether surveillance data were useful when evaluating new products. DESIGN: Survey of employee health department reports. SETTING: Tertiary care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare workers who reported needlestick injuries and other blood and body fluid exposures to the employee health department. INTERVENTIONS: Exposure data from the 10 months prior to institution of the educational program and installation of disposal boxes were compared with data from the following 27 months. Additionally, the type of disposal box was changed for the last 9 months of the survey. RESULTS: Needlestick injuries caused by recapping fell significantly following the educational program (p = .005). However, injuries caused by previously disposed needles protruding into the mechanical opening of the needleboxes increased significantly (p = .002). Following a change of needleboxes to a nonmechanical opening design, the latter type of injury declined (p = .052). Total needlestick injuries, most other categories of needlestick injury, and other exposures did not change significantly during the 37 months of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The educational programs appeared to have positive impact on reducing recapping injuries, but many other needlestick categories did not change significantly. Mechanical opening needle disposal boxes appear to present a hazard when compared with fixed opening boxes. Surveillance data appear to be useful in monitoring injuries as well as evaluating products.     

Needlestick and sharps injuries among health-care workers in Taiwan.

Sharps injuries are a major cause of transmission of hepatitis B and C viruses and human immunodeficiency virus in health-care workers. To determine the yearly incidence and causes of sharps injuries in health-care workers in Taiwan, we conducted a questionnaire survey in a total of 8645 health care workers, including physicians, nurses, laboratory technicians, and cleaners, from teaching hospitals of various sizes. The reported incidence of needlestick and other sharps injuries was 1.30 and 1.21 per person in the past 12 months, respectively. Of most recent episodes of needlestick/sharps injury, 52.0% were caused by ordinary syringe needles, usually in the patient units. The most frequently reported circumstances of needlestick were recapping of needles, and those of sharps injuries were opening of ampoules/vials. Of needles which stuck the health-care workers, 54.8% had been used in patients, 8.2% of whom were known to have hepatitis B or C, syphilis, or human immunodeficiency virus infection. Sharps injuries in health-care workers in Taiwan occur more frequently than generally thought and risks of contracting blood-borne infectious diseases as a result are very high.     

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.     

应用信息化技术调查护生针刺伤现状

目的 了解护生针刺伤发生现状，探讨有效的职业暴露应对策略。方法 回顾性调查某院2016—2018年临床实习护生针刺伤发生情况。护生在进入临床实习前，统一登记基本资料，并对其进行感染预防及控制相关知识培训，告知护生发生针刺伤后应经蓝蜻蜓医院感染实时监控管理系统上报。通过蓝蜻蜓系统导出护生针刺伤相关数据进行统计、分析。结果 共调查2 099名护生，其中男生256名，女生1 843名；大专生1 117名，本科生921名，国内硕士研究生34名，外籍硕士研究生27名。发生针刺伤232例次，针刺伤发生率为11.05%。不同性别、学历、实习阶段、科室护生针刺伤发生率比较差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。在操作环节分布上，分离针头、拔针和回套针帽时针刺伤所占比率分别为28.88%、21.55%和18.10%。在暴露源的分布上，HBV和梅毒分别占21.12%、6.90%。在暴露场所分布上，发生在病房的针刺伤占32.33%。结论 该院护生针刺伤发生率较低，但女性实习生、学历较低者、实习第一阶段、分离针头时、回套针帽时针刺伤发生率较高。应加强安全注射规范化培训，制定个性化培训方案等。     

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.     

Preventing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers: a WHO-ICN collaboration

Effective measures to prevent infections from occupaonal exposure of healthcare workers to blood include mmunization against HBV, eliminating unnecessary injections, implementing Universal Precautions, eliminating needle recapping and disposing of the sharp into a sharps container immediately after use, use of safer devices such as needles that sheath or retract after use, provision and use of personal protective equipment, and training workers in the risks and prevention of transmission. Post-exposure prophylaxis with antiretroviral medications can reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 80%. In 2003, the World Health Organization and the International Council of Nurses launched a pilot project in three countries to protect healthcare workers from needlestick injuries. The results of the pilot will be disseminated worldwide, along with best policies and practices for prevention.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Analysis of needle stick injuries at a university hospital: situations of occurrence and trends

Needlestick injuries remain the major source of risk of acquiring bloodborne diseases (AIDS, hepatitis B and C). Therefore, it is a priority discussing strategies of intervention based in sources of risk. The purpose of this study was to analyze needlestick injuries occurred at a university hospital. A data base construction made possible to identify the situations in which those accidents occur and standards of tendencies along the years. The data pointed out that the majority of needlestick injuries occurred while performing or assisting procedures. The introduction of the first prevention measures (universal precautions) reduced the total number of needlestick injuries. However, changes in needlestick-injury rates related to the recapping were not observed. Authors discussed the use of different prevention strategies: introduction of safety devices, changing the training focus, and the reorganization of the work environment and work practices.     

Study of Prevalence and Response to Needle Stick Injuries among Health Care Workers in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Delhi, India

Background:

Because of the environment in which they work, many health care workers are at an increased risk of accidental needle stick injuries (NSI).

Objective:

To study prevalence and response to needle stick injuries among health care workers.

Materials and Methods:

Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: A tertiary care hospital in Delhi. Participants: 322 resident doctors, interns, nursing staff, nursing students, and technicians. Statistical Analysis: Proportions and Chi-square test.

Results:

A large percentage (79.5%) of HCWs reported having had one or more NSIs in their career. The average number of NSIs ever was found to be 3.85 per HCW (range 0-20). 72 (22.4%) reported having received a NSI within the last month. More than half (50.4%) ascribed fatigue as a cause in their injury. Most of the injuries (34.0%) occurred during recapping. In response to their most recent NSI, 60.9% washed the site of injury with water and soap while 38 (14.8%) did nothing. Only 20 (7.8%) of the HCWs took post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) against HIV/AIDS after their injury.

Conclusions:

The occurrence of NSI was found to be quite common. Avoidable practices like recapping of needles were contributing to the injuries. Prevention of NSI is an integral part of prevention programs in the work place, and training of HCWs regarding safety practices indispensably needs to be an ongoing activity at a hospital.     

Impact of a recapping device on venepuncture-related needlestick injury

In a 33-month prospective analysis of needlestick injuries, venepuncturists working under Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for handling used needles were shown to incur a needlestick injury for every 3,175 to 4,006 needle-handling procedures. On the other hand, users of a simple device designed to reduce the risk of injury when recapping used needles were shown to incur a needlestick only once in every 16,100 venepunctures performed (P less than 0.001). This represents a fourfold reduction in the rate of needlestick injuries. We thus question the effectiveness of the CDC nonrecapping policy.     

护生进入临床实习前针刺伤相关知识和态度的现状调查

目的调查护生进入临床实习前针刺伤的相关知识和态度现状。方法于2015年6月20—23日调查某院2015年6月准备进入临床实习的护生,采用问卷调查法调查实习护生针刺伤知识和态度。结果共发放问卷350份,回收有效问卷324份,有效率92.57%。男生40名（12.35%）,女生284名（87.65%）;本科学历34名（10.49%）;平均年龄（20.83±1.24）岁。实习护生针刺伤相关知识各条目中回套针帽、戴手套相关问题的回答正确率最低,均为60%左右;接种乙肝疫苗后发生针刺伤感染乙型肝炎病毒的问题及针刺伤后的用药问题回答正确率均在70%左右。实习护生针刺伤态度部分部分条目得分≤3分,主要为针刺伤所致血液、体液传播性疾病易感性以及回套针帽的问题。结论实习护生的针刺伤相关知识和态度存在薄弱的方面,如回套针帽、及时报告、传染病易感性等问题。学校和医院应加强对护生职业安全防护知识教育,提高职业防护的态度和能力。     

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.