你的孩子预防接种是安全注射吗

1999年卫生部对两县进行调查,预防接种不安全注射率高达88.1％,其中单纯消毒不正确占17％,单纯注射不正确占40％,两者都不正确占43％……     

甘肃省2006年预防接种安全注射现状调查分析

目的：通过对甘肃省2006年预防接种安全注射开展状况进行调查研究，了解在全球疫苗免疫联盟（简称GAVI）项目启动后，甘肃省基层接种点预防接种安全出现的新问题并提出改进策略。方法：采用分层多阶段抽样方法对全省20％的接种点进行安全注射现况调查。结果：调查接种点注射器使用以一次性和自毁型注射器为主，占68．47％；部分农村接种点仍有使用玻璃注射器现象，占3．23％，100％达到“一人一针一管”；使用后的一次性注射器安全处理率达95％以上，但各级仍存在丢弃、掩埋等不安全处理，约为3％～1％。结论：随着一次性注射器及自毁型注射器的推广使用，使用后如何合理回收和处理使用过的一次性注射器是目前安全注射面临的严重挑战，同时，卫生人员安全注射知识的强化和卫生管理的薄弱也是影响甘肃本省预防接种安全注射实施的因素。     

甘肃省不同经济状况地区预防接种安全注射现状调查

为了解甘肃省不同经济状况地区预防接种安全注射现状,1999年7月结合世界银行贷款疾病预防(卫生Ⅶ)项目计划免疫子项目接种率及影响因素调查,抽取部分接种点进行相关调查.结果显示调查接种点中达到"一人一针一管”的占53.1%,单纯使用一次性注射器的占16.9%;农村大部分接种点使用玻璃注射器或同时使用玻璃注射器及一次性注射器;灭菌方式由以往煮沸为主变为以高压蒸汽为主;接种人员安全注射知识较缺乏、接种点缺乏足够的注射器材是造成不安全注射的主要原因.今后应重视和加强预防接种安全注射工作,采取培训、宣传、督导检查、配备补充注射器材等综合措施,确保预防接种中达到安全注射.     

农村地区促进预防接种安全注射措施的研究

安全注射是指疫苗或药品用安全处理过的灭菌器材进行注射。为促进对农村地区预防接种安全注射措施的研究 ,在湖北省应城市和云梦县 ,利用快速参与式评估方法 ,将信息员分为管理者、乡村医生和被服务对象 3种 ,采用定性和定量相结合的方法 ,对农村地区预防接种安全注射现状及应采取的干预措施进行了研究。结果表明 :预防接种中 88 1%的注射是不安全的 ,其中单纯消毒不合格占 18% ,单纯未执行“一人一针一管”占 40 % ,消毒和注射操作均不正确占 42 %。采取干预措施后显示 ,要促进预防接种安全注射必须采取综合性干预措施 ,在配备器材的基础上进行有针对性的培训、加强监督和监测是非常重要的。培训时要注意纠正乡村医生的知识偏差和错误观念 ,提高他们的安全注射意识。提高群众的自我保护意识 ,加强社会监督应是促进安全注射的一项长期策略     

容县计免预防接种点不安全注射的现状及对策

“到2000年消除预防接种中不正确的消毒和注射行为，实行安全注射”是我国卫生部于1997年提出的预防接种安全注射的目标。经过多年来的努力，容县实施预防接种安全注射工作取得了一定成绩，但从调查统计资料分析，仍存在着影响安全注射的目标如期实现的因素，在此进一步提出不安全注射的危害性，并针对容县的现状提出相应对策。     

甘肃省部分县预防接种安全注射干预前后儿童家长相关知识的变化

目的：了解干预前后儿童家长预防接种安全注射知识水平的变化。方法：在全省按照典型抽样方法抽取3个县，共调查儿家长340名，设立对照组和干预组，采取问卷调查、现场观察等措施，并进行统计学分析评价。结果：干预实施前，干预组和对照组的儿童家长对安全注射相关问题的知晓情况，除对“乙肝会传染”回答正确率较高外，达到80％左右，其余问题知晓率均低。实施干预后，干预组的儿童家长在“不安全注射会传染疾病”、“打疫苗时要求一次性注射器”及“乙肝会传染”的回答正确率较高，达到90％以上，对照组儿童家长知晓率较前有所提高，但提高幅度低于干预组，两组比较有统计学意义。结论：有效的宣传动员及运用典型案例对群众进行预防接种安全注射相关知识可比有效的培训，提高家长预防接种安全注射意识。     

农村计划免疫实施方式的调查

我国农村人口占８０％以上,因此,农村计划免疫工作的好坏直接影响我国的国民素质。为了切实搞好计划免疫,正确引导预防接种的实施,探讨一种适合我国农村情况的计划免疫实施方式,１９９８年我们开展了这一专题调查,现报告如下。１　内容与方法首先确定调查方案,设计调查表,培训调查人员,然后开展调查。调查内容：①对周口地区所辖十个县卫生防疫站进行预防接种方式询问调查;②随机抽样一部分乡镇和行政村及计划免疫专业技术人员、儿童家长等进行调查;③对于实施计划免疫不同方式的乡镇进行接种率,安全注射、乙肝疫苗接种情况调查…     

重庆市武隆县医疗机构安全注射现况调查

目的：了解重庆市武隆县医疗机构安全注射现况，为采取干预措施提供依据。方法：用统一设计的调查表对注射服务机构和人员进行调查。结果：52．2％（12／23）的医疗机构玻璃注射器消毒不合格、31．4％（11／35）的医疗机构注射操作不正确、63．6％（21／33）的医疗机构直接丢弃用过的一次性注射器。存在以上至少1种不安全注射行为的医疗机构有77．1％（27／35）。结论：青霉素皮肤过敏试验共用针管的不正确操作、医务工作者销毁注射器被刺伤、一次性注射器卫生质量管理空白是目前主要的不安全因素。培训医务人员的正确注射行为、重视一次性注射器的卫生质量管理和用后的安全处理是提高安全注射水平的重要措施。     

中国西部5省预防接种安全注射现状及影响因素调查

为了解中国加强扩大免疫规划项目省的基层计划免疫服务现状,在西部5个省(自治区,下同)采用多阶段随机抽样方法进行了调查.根据基线调查数据,对5个省的预防接种安全注射现状及其影响因素进行了分析.结果显示在5个省调查的接种点中,完全使用一次性注射器的占26.1%,完全使用玻璃注射器的占27.5%,两者兼用的占46.4%.一次性注射器的使用中能做到"一人一针一管"注射方式的占92.2%,使用玻璃注射器能做到"一人一针一管"注射方式的占52.5%.有高压蒸汽灭菌器的接种点,乡(镇)卫生院和村卫生室使用的分别占77.0%、77.8%,仍分别有9.7%～12.4%和20.4%～23.1%使用热水冲洗或浸泡和酒精棉擦拭的方式进行灭菌.对于预防接种技术正确掌握率为70.9%～76.4%.建议加强安全注射和灭菌知识的培训,推广使用自毁型一次性注射器,加强监督,防止医源性感染,切实保证预防接种和医疗注射的安全.     

湖南省162个基层预防接种点安全注射状况调查分析

为了解湖南省基层预防接种安全注射状况，促进安全注射，采取分层多阶段随机抽样方法，对162个基层预防接种点安全注射现状进行了调查。接种点以一次性注射器和玻璃注射器为主，安全注射率为46．30％，村级和使用玻璃注射器的接种点安全注射率相对较低。只有35．18％的基层预防接种人员能够正确认识不安全注射的危害。对如何提高基层预防接种点安全注射水平提出了建议。     

Injection practices in southern part of India

The World Health Organization defines 'a safe injection' as one that does not harm the recipient, does not expose the provider to any avoidable risk, and does not result in any waste that is dangerous to the community. Irrational and unsafe injection practices are rife in developing countries. The objective of the present study was to assess the injection practices in the state of Tamilnadu, India, using the Rapid assessment and response guide of the Safe Injection Global Network of the World Health Organization. Thirty-nine prescribers, 62 providers, and 175 members of the general public were interviewed. The areas were chosen out of convenience while at the same time adhering to the guidelines. The study was carried out between April and June 2001. The per capita injection rate was 2.4 per year. The ratio of therapeutic to immunization injections was 6.5:1, and the proportion of injections given with a disposable syringe and needle was 35.4%. Knowledge about diseases transmitted by unsafe injections, for example involving human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus, was greater among all the study groups. The annual incidence of needlestick injuries among providers was 23.6, which is extremely high. It is concluded that there are deficiencies in practice such as an excessive, unwarranted usage of injections, a sizeable prevalence of unsafe injection practices, the short supply of injection equipment leading to a high incidence of needlestick injuries, a low proportion of hepatitis B virus immunization among providers, and a lack of adequate sharps containers and disposal facilities in this part of India. It is suggested that immediate and long-term remedial measures, such as the education of prescribers to reduce the number of injections to a bare minimum, an adequate supply of injection equipment, provider protection with immunization for hepatitis B virus, the provision of adequate sharps containers with safe disposal facilities and, not least, community education, be undertaken to avoid the future epidemic of transmissible diseases.     

Injection practices in Burkina Faso in 2000.

BACKGROUND: Unsafe delivery and overuse of injections can result in the spread of hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV. The aim of the present survey was to estimate the frequency of safe injection practices in Burkina Faso. METHOD: Using the new standardized World Health Organization tool to assess injection practices, we selected 80 primary health facilities with a two-stage cluster sampling method, collected information using structured observations and provider interviews, and analyzed the data using Epi-Info software. RESULTS: We observed 116 injections in 52 facilities. In 50 facilities [96%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 85-99%] injections were given with a new, single-use syringe and needle. In 29 facilities (56%; 95% CI 36-74%), staff recapped needles using two hands. All 80 facilities visited had a stock in the community to provide new, single-use syringes and needles. In 61% (95% CI 54-79%) of facilities, staff reported needlestick injuries in the last 12 months. Used needles were discarded in open containers in 66 facilities (83%; 95% CI 55-96%) and observed in the surroundings of 46 facilities (57%; 95% CI 32-80%). CONCLUSIONS: In 2000, most of the health facilities in Burkina Faso were using sterile injection equipment. However, practices were still observed that could expose patients, health care workers, and communities to risks, and that required specific interventions.     

Safe injection practice among health care workers, Gharbiya, Egypt

A cross-sectional study was conducted in 25 health care facilities in Gharbiya governorate to assess safe injection practices among health care workers (HCWs). Two questionnaires, one to collect information about administrative issues related to safe injection and the other to collect data about giving injections, exposure to needle stick injuries, hepatitis B vaccination status and safe injection training. Practices of injections were observed using a standardized checklist. The study revealed that there was lack of both national and local infection control policies and lack of most of the supplies needed for safe injection practices. Many safe practices were infrequent as proper needle manipulation before disposal (41%), safe needle disposal (47.5%), reuse of used syringe & needle (13.2%) and safe syringe disposal (0%). Exposure to needle stick injuries were common among the interviewed HCWs (66.2%) and hand washing was the common post exposure prophylaxis measure (63.4%). Only 11.3% of HCWs had full course hepatitis B vaccination. Infection control -including safe injections- training programs should be afforded to all HCWs.     

Best infection control practices for intradermal,subcutaneous, and intramuscular needle injections

OBJECTIVE: To draw up evidence-based guidelines to make injections safer. METHODS: A development group summarized evidence-based best practices for preventing injection-associated infections in resource-limited settings. The development process included a breakdown of the WHO reference definition of a safe injection into a list of potentially critical steps, a review of the literature for each of these steps, the formulation of best practices, and the submission of the draft document to peer review. FINDINGS: Eliminating unnecessary injections is the highest priority in preventing injection-associated infections. However, when intradermal, subcutaneous, or intramuscular injections are medically indicated, best infection control practices include the use of sterile injection equipment, the prevention of contamination of injection equipment and medication, the prevention of needle-stick injuries to the provider, and the prevention of access to used needles. CONCLUSION: The availability of best infection control practices for intradermal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular injections will provide a reference for global efforts to achieve the goal of safe and appropriate use of injections. WHO will revise the best practices five years after initial development, i.e. in 2005.     

Reducing the risk of unsafe injections in immunization programmes: financial and operational implications of various injection technologies.

The unsafe use and disposal of injection equipment continues to put patients, health care workers, and the general community at risk of infections such as hepatitis B virus and human immunodeficiency virus. Although the potential for unsafe injection practices varies substantially with the type of equipment that is used, technology alone cannot totally eliminate the risk. A knowledge of the cost, practicality and, most importantly, the potential for misuse, is critical for selecting the most appropriate injection equipment for each immunization setting. Four types of injection equipment are currently available for administering vaccines: sterilizable needles and syringes; standard disposable needles and syringes; autodestruct needles and syringes; and jet injectors. In general, the cost per injection is lowest with sterilizable equipment and highest with autodestruct. However, only autodestruct syringes virtually eliminate the risk of unsafe injection practices. Owing to differences in cost and programme factors, in some settings it may be appropriate to use a combination of equipment. For example, autodestruct syringes may be used in areas where it is difficult to ensure adequate supervision, while in medium-sized, fixed-site clinics with safe injection practices, sterilizable equipment will be the most cost-effective.     

Safety of immunization injections in Africa: not simply a problem of logistics

In 1995, the WHO Regional Office for Africa launched a logistics project to address the four main areas of immunization logistics: the cold chain, transport, vaccine supply and quality, and the safety of injections in the countries of the region. The impact of this logistic approach on immunization injection safety was evaluated through surveys of injection procedures and an analysis of the injection materials (e.g. sterilizable or disposable syringes) chosen by the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) and those actually seen to be used. Re-use of injection materials without sterilization, accidental needle-stick injuries among health care workers, and injection-related abscesses in patients were common in countries in the WHO African Region. Few health centres used time-steam saturation-temperature (TST) indicators to check the quality of sterilization and, in many centres, the injection equipment was boiled instead of being steam sterilized. Facilities for the proper disposal of used materials were rarely present. Although the official EPI choice was to use sterilizable equipment, use of a combination of sterilizable and disposable equipment was observed in the field. Unsafe injection practices in these countries were generally due to a failure to integrate nursing practices and public awareness with injection safety issues, and an absence of the influence of EPI managers on health care service delivery. Holistic rather than logistic approaches should be adopted to achieve safe injections in immunization, in the broader context of promoting safe vaccines and safety of all injections.     

贵州省部分农村地区不安全注射情况调查

目的了解贵州省部分农村地区不安全注射情况，为有效预防控制农村地区不安全注射行为提供依据。方法采用定性研究的方法，对贵州省正安县部分农村卫生院、卫生室、个体诊所医务人员和部分村民进行访谈，了解当地的不安全注射情况。结果贵州省部分农村地区的乡医院、村卫生室、个体诊所普遍存在着使用玻璃注射器，但消毒措施不完善等情况。医疗机构对一次性注射器的处理较为随意，存在安全隐患。医务人员对消毒相关知识掌握较差，尤其是村医和个体医生。村民对不安全注射并没有引起重视。结论贵州省农村地区不安全注射情况较为严重，主要原因为医务人员安全注射意识不强，村民卫生知识缺乏，社会监管不力，需要在贵州省农村地区加大安全注射的健康教育。     

不安全注射——扩大免疫规划面临的挑战

不安全注射正日渐成为扩大免疫规划(EPI)中不容忽视的问题.甚至在指出不安全注射有传播血源性疾病的危险之后,在发展中国家不安全注射仍被普遍实施.18个国家中有14个国家超过50%的注射是不安全的.在日本丙型肝炎的病因被认为是医源性传播.在中国只换针头的多针一管注射很普遍,一次性注射器的普及仍不能解决这一问题.提供足够的器材、培训、监督和正确的处理使用过的一次性注射器,对于保证安全注射是很关键的.