Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Needlestick Injuries”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1987

Impact of a rigid, puncture resistant container system upon needlestick injuries.

Needlestick injuries in a 720-bed tertiary care hospital were analyzed before and after the introduction of a rigid, puncture resistant, needle disposal system. Following implementation of the system, disposal-related injuries decreased from 0.9 per 100 full-time equivalent employees/year to 0.3 per 100 full-time equivalent employees/year (p less than .005). However, needlesticks associated with procedures (2.2 vs. 4.4 per 100 full-time equivalent employees/year, p less than .0005), and those resulting from loose needles (0.5 vs. 1.9 per 100 full-time equivalent employees/year, p less than .0005), increased. Injuries occurring during needle recapping or the carrying of needles were not significantly altered. Total needlestick injuries increased from 6.0 to 8.7 per 100 full-time equivalent employees/year (p less than .0005). We concluded that a rigid, puncture resistant, needle disposal system can reduce disposal-related needlestick injuries, but must also be perceived as convenient to impact substantially upon needlesticks associated with other activities.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1992

The risk of needlestick injuries and needlestick-transmitted diseases in the practice of anesthesiology.

Anesthesiologists are at risk for acquiring blood-borne infections through contact with blood or body fluids. From prospective studies, the greatest risk of transmission is through a percutaneous exposure such as needlestick injury. Personal protective equipment such as gloves and gowns do not completely prevent these exposures. Although educational efforts can reduce the frequency of recapping of needles, they generally have not decreased the incidence of needlesticks. Therefore, in addition to practicing universal precautions, anesthesiologists can attempt to reduce their risk of needlestick injuries by eliminating nonessential unprotected needle use, through the use of needleless or protected needle devices (engineering controls) and by modifying anesthetic procedures requiring needles (work practice controls). Needleless or protected needle products are commercially available for use in many procedures performed by anesthesiologists. For tasks that require the use of needled devices, the practitioner should use safe techniques for handling (i.e., one-handed recapping if recapping is needed) and disposal (i.e., puncture-resistant containers) of these devices. Evaluation of the efficacy, cost, and safety of needleless or protected needle products should be continued as they are introduced into wider use. Additionally, anesthesiologists should be encouraged to report needlestick injuries so that appropriate postexposure treatment can be given and so that the incident can be studied to permit design of a work protocol or device to prevent similar accidents in the future.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed1989

Needlestick injury in the OR: facts and prevention.

Recapping is the most common cause of preventable needlestick injury. Needlestick injury can be prevented by proper handling techniques. Needlestick injury can transmit the hepatitis virus to the victim. Double-gloving protects against fluid contamination but does not add any more protection against needlesticks than does a single glove.

Cross Infection↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Needlestick injury in the OR: facts and prevention.

Recapping is the most common cause of preventable needlestick injury. Needlestick injury can be prevented by proper handling techniques. Needlestick injury can transmit the hepatitis virus to the victim. Double-gloving protects against fluid contamination but does not add any more protection against needlesticks than does a single glove.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed1992

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.

California↗
PubMed1991

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.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Needlestick injuries among resident physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency and causes of needlestick injuries in medical and surgical housestaff. DESIGN: A retrospective survey. SETTING: Urban university teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 386 housestaff; 221 responded. INTERVENTION: Survey questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS: 1) Frequency of needlestick: Of 221 respondents, 57 (26%) reported never having had a needlestick, while 164 (74%) reported at least one needlestick injury with a suture or hollow-bore needle. The average frequencies were 0.63 per resident-year among 149 non-surgical residents and 3.8 per resident-year among 72 surgical residents. Among residents in internal medicine, 12 of 78 needlestick injuries (15%) sustained were from patients documented to be HIV-positive. 2) Causes of needlestick: The causes of injury were assessed in detail in a sample of the 157 most recent needlestick injuries. Suturing was the cause in 35 of 61 (57%) surgical residents, while recapping needles was the cause in 36 of 96 (38%) non-surgical residents. Inexperience was not the cause of injury; in 94% of cases the residents felt comfortable performing the procedure, and in 74% of cases the residents had performed the procedure more than 50 times before. 3) Reporting of injury: Only 30 (19%) of 157 injuries were reported to the personnel health service, thus compromising documentation for potential workmen's compensation. CONCLUSIONS: Needlestick injuries are common among medical and surgical housestaff. Efforts should be made to prevent needlestick injuries and to report those that occur.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed1991

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.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1989

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.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1989

Needlestick injuries in ophthalmology.

Because serious nosocomial diseases can be transmitted by needlestick injuries, a retrospective review of needlestick injuries was conducted for a period of 2.5 years at a major university teaching hospital. The objective was to determine the needlestick injury rate among employees of the Department of Ophthalmology versus the other departments. Ophthalmologists had the highest incidence per person of needle injuries among physicians. Retina and strabismus surgeons were at higher risk than anterior segment surgeons.

Hospitals, Teaching↗
PubMed1991

Evaluating needlestick injuries in nursing personnel. Development of a questionnaire.

1. Needlestick injuries are the most common type of occupational injury experienced by nursing personnel. Sixty percent to 90% of needlestick injuries in medical centers are incurred by nurses. 2. Future increases in patient acuity and more advanced technology are likely to increase the risk of nurses experiencing accidental needlesticks. 3. Needle devices that require disassembly of equipment, especially those related to intravenous piggybacks and prefilled cartridge syringes, are placing nurses at an increased risk for injury. 4. Needle-less devices or devices which keep the needle recessed except during intended use have been designed. The assessment instrument can identify needlestick injury incidence and trends and can be used to evaluate and justify the increased costs of purchasing new safety equipment.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1992

Reported hospital needlestick injuries in relation to knowledge/skill, design, and management problems.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate reported needlestick injuries in hospital workers from an adult learner theory perspective: identifying safe needle device knowledge and practice, and flaws in needle designs and management practices surrounding such problems. DESIGN: Exploratory descriptive study of reported needlestick injuries from hollow needled devices in a hospital. Injured healthcare workers were counseled via hospital protocol, then a survey was filled out containing no identifiers of individual or institution. SETTING: Seventeen Metropolitan Washington, DC, area hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: All workers reporting needlestick injuries during February 1-28, 1990. RESULTS: Seventy-two injuries were reported; there were no multiple injuries to any individual. Thirty-three (45.8%) were to registered nurses (RNs)-more than any other group of workers. Recapping accounted for a higher percentage than any other activity (10 sticks, 14.1%). Of workers incurring recapping injuries, 3 identified a knowledge of a one-handed spearing technique and did not practice it; 4 neither knew nor practiced it. Eighteen (25.0%) were to "down-stream" housekeepers and aides who did not use such devices in their practice. Disposable needle/syringes caused 49.3% of injuries; hypodermic needles on intravenous lines caused 16.9%. Of the needlesticks, 60.6% were after use and before disposal, 4.2% occurred as the worker was putting an item into a needlebox, and 9.9% occurred from needles protruding from inappropriate bags. Many injuries occurred in the first 2 hours of work after being off the previous day, on Sunday, and on Monday. CONCLUSIONS: Of nurses and medical technologists reporting knowledge of a spearing recapping technique, 97.3% suffered injury via other methods. This strongly suggests that knowledge leads to different action. Safer needled devices and needle-free systems would make a safer workplace. Further study is indicated to identify if and why the first two hours after returning to work on Sunday or Monday are risky for needlestick injuries. Management practices must ensure compliance to safe practice both by employees and related medical staff.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1991

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.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1990

Needlestick injuries and needle disposal in Minnesota nursing homes.

We examined needle use and disposal, needlestick injuries and their management, and employee education regarding the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and needle use by means of a questionnaire sent to all long-term care facilities certified for skilled care in Minnesota. Responses were received from 297 of 349 (85.1%) homes. Nearly all homes (271 of 293; 92.5%) provided education for new nursing employees about use and disposal of needles. Disposal of needles and sharps was generally consistent with current recommendations for short-term care hospitals. Needlestick injuries were usually related to recapping and were most common in registered and licensed practical nurses but were infrequent (i.e., less than 1 injury per home per employee-year) probably because parenteral therapy is infrequently used in long-term care settings. Only slightly over half (166 of 286; 58%) of the homes had protocols for management of needlestick injuries. Although Minnesota nursing homes properly dispose of needles and sharps, many of these institutions need to develop policies for management of needlestick injuries that are consistent with current recommendations.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1992

Needlestick injury in hospital personnel: a multicenter survey from central Italy. The Latium Hepatitis B Prevention Group.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the rate of needlestick injury in hospital personnel in an Italian region. To identify risk factors potentially amendable to correction. DESIGN: Hospital workers undergoing hepatitis B prevaccination testing in 1985 through 1986 were interviewed regarding needlestick injury in the previous year, job category, area of work, years of employment, and other pertinent information. SETTING: Of the 98 public hospitals of the Latium region, 68 participated in the survey: 32 of 55 with less than 200 beds, 20 of 25 with 200 to 300 beds, 11 of 13 with 400 to 900 beds, and all of the 5 with more than 1,000 beds. PARTICIPANTS: All healthcare workers providing direct patient care or environmental services as well as student nurses were invited by the hospital directors to undergo hepatitis B prevaccination testing and vaccination, if eligible. RESULTS: Of 30,226 hospital workers of the 68 participating hospitals, 20,055 were interviewed (66.3%): 47.7% of the 7,172 doctors, 71% of the 14,157 nurses, 55.9% of the 2,513 technicians, and 71.9% of the 6,384 ancillary workers. Needlestick injury was recalled by 29.3%; the rates were 54.9%, 35.3%, 33.8%, 26.5%, 18.7%, and 14.7% in surgeons, registered and unskilled nurses, physicians, ancillary workers, and technicians, respectively. The recalled injury rate was 39.7% and 34.0% in surgical and intensive care areas; in infectious diseases, it was 16.7%. Rates were lower in hospitals with 200 to 300 beds (25.6%). The needlestick injury rate declined from 32% in those with less than 5 years of employment to 28% in those with more than 20 years (p less than .01). Prevalence of HBV infection was higher in student nurses and young workers recalling a needlestick exposure (14.3% and 15.8%, respectively), versus 10.1% and 12.8% in those not exposed (p less than .01 and less than .05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Parenteral exposure to blood-borne infectious agents is a relevant risk among healthcare workers in our region, particularly in defined job categories and hospital areas (surgeons, nurses, surgical, and intensive care areas). Immunization and educational efforts should be made along with better designs of devices to reduce the risk of infection.

Hepatitis B↗
PubMed1992

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.

Humans↗
PubMed1991

Needlestick injuries and hepatitis B immunization in Florida paramedics: a statewide survey.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of needlestick injury among paramedics working in Florida during 1987, to describe the circumstances surrounding such injuries, and to assess the hepatitis B vaccination status of this group. DESIGN: Survey of a systematic random sample of paramedics using a self-administered questionnaire. SETTING: Florida. TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Paramedics. MAIN RESULTS: A completed questionnaire was returned by 300 of 500 paramedics (60%) who received the mailed questionnaire. Sixty-nine paramedics (23%) reported a total of 110 needlestick injuries. More than one third of injuries occurred in conjunction with recapping needles. Almost 62% of reported injuries could have been prevented had proper needle disposal technique been used. Sixty-two percent of paramedics reported having had at least one dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. Sixty-five percent of the unvaccinated paramedics said they would take the hepatitis B vaccine if it was offered free. CONCLUSION: The majority of needlestick injuries among paramedics in Florida could be prevented with proper needle disposal. Offering the hepatitis B vaccine at no charge to paramedics in Florida could increase the vaccination rate substantially.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Needlestick injuries in anaesthetists.

A survey of needlestick injuries among 42 anaesthetists at this university hospital was carried out over a 3-month period to ascertain the rate of occurrence and the extent to which a revised protocol for the management of such injuries was followed. There were nine reported incidents, of which six were with contaminated needles. Three were reported. Eight anaesthetists had not taken up immunisation against hepatitis B. The rationale behind the revised protocol, and possible reasons for poor compliance are discussed.

Accidents, Occupational↗