Hostname: page-component-7857688df4-qtpdn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-16T01:04:37.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Needlestick Injury: Impact of a Recapping Device and an Associated Education Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Michael Whitby ,
Pat Stead  and
Jake M. Najman
Michael Whitby*
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
Pat Stead
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
Jake M. Najman
Affiliation:
Departments of Social and Preventive Medicine and Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
*
Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane 4102Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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<.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.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , April 1991 , pp. 220 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1991 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Hirsh, MS, Wormser, GP, Schooley, RT, et al. Risk of nosocomial infection with human T-cell lymphotropic virus III. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:1–4.Google Scholar
2. Ruben, FL, Norden, CW, Rockwell, K, et al. Epidemiology of accidental needle puncture wounds in hospital workers. Am J Med Sci. 1983;286:26–30.Google Scholar
3. Neuberger, JS, Harris, JA, Kundin, WD, et al. Incidence of needlestick injuries in hospital personnel; implications for prevention. Am J Infect Control. 1984;12:171–176.Google Scholar
4. Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations for preventing transmission of infection with human T-Lymphotropic virus type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus in the workplace. MMWR. 1985;34:691–695.Google Scholar
5. Nixon, AD, Law, R, Officer, JA, et al. Simple device to prevent accidental needle-stick injuries. Lancet. 1986;1:888–889.Google Scholar
6. Najman, JM. From an art to a science of health promotion. New Doctor. 1984;32:29–32.Google Scholar
7. Centers for Disease Control. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and human immunodeficiency virus infection among health-care workers. MMWR. 1988;37:229–234.Google Scholar
8. Dienstag, JL. Passive-active immunoprophylaxis after percutaneous exposure to hepatitis B virus. Hepatology. 1989;10:385–387.Google Scholar
9. Gerberding, JI, Kaminsky, LS, Sande, MA. Transmission of hepatitis B without transmission of AIDS by accidental needlestick. N Eng J Med. 1985;312:56.Google Scholar
10. Hamory, BH. Under reporting of needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control. 1983;11:174–177.Google Scholar
11. Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens. LAV/HTLVIII—The Causative Agent of AIDS and Related Conditions. London, England: DHSS; 1986.Google Scholar
12. McCray, E. The cooperative needlestick study group: occupational risk of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome among healthcare workers. N Eng J Med. 1986;314:1127–1132.Google Scholar
13. Ribner, BS, Laudry, MN, Gholson, GL, et al. Impact of a rigid, plastic puncture resistant container system upon needlestick injuries. Infect Control. 1987;8:63–66.Google Scholar
14. Edmond, M, Khakoo, R, McTaggart, B, et al. Effect of bedside needle disposal units on needle recapping frequency and needlestick injury. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1988;9:114–116.Google Scholar
15. Goldwater, PN, Law, R, Nixon, AD, et al. Impact of a recapping device on venepuncture-related needlestick injury. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1989;10:21–25.Google Scholar
16. Summer, w. Needlecaps to prevent needlestick injuries. Infect Control. 1985;6:495–497.Google Scholar
17. Jagger, J, Hunt, EH, Brand-Elnagger, J, et al. Rate of needlestick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. New Eng J Med. 1988;319:284–288.Google Scholar