Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:49:24.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effectiveness of a Needleless Intravenous Connection System An Assessment by Injury Rate and User Satisfaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Louann W. Lawrence ,
George L. Delclos ,
Sarah A. Felknor ,
Philip C. Johnson ,
Ralph F. Frankowski ,
Sharon P. Cooper  and
Anthony Davidson
Louann W. Lawrence*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Technology, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, Louisiana
George L. Delclos
Affiliation:
Southwest Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
Sarah A. Felknor
Affiliation:
Southwest Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
Philip C. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine at the Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
Ralph F. Frankowski
Affiliation:
Department of Biometry at the School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
Sharon P. Cooper
Affiliation:
Southwest Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
Anthony Davidson
Affiliation:
Southwest Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
*
Department of Medical Technology, Louisiana State University, 1900 Gravier St, New Orleans, LA 70112-2262
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the impact of a needleless intravenous (IV) connection system on the rate of reported intravenous-connection–related (IVCR) percutaneous injuries, and to assess user satisfaction, frequency of use, and barriers to use.

Design:

A pre-post inter vention design, with injury incidence rates being compared 3 years before and 1 year after hospitalwide device implementation; and a cross-sectional descriptive user satisfaction survey.

Setting:

Two tertiar y-care teaching hospitals, one general and one pediatric, located in a large metropolitan medical center.

Outcome Variable:

All IVCR percutaneous injuries reported to the employee health ser vices at both hospitals during the years from 1989 to 1991 and 1993.

Study Population:

Survey participants were selected randomly from licensed nursing employees at both hospitals.

Intervention:

IV connection system consisting of blunt plastic cannulas and compressed latex injection sites.

Results:

After device implementation, the IVCR injury rate was reduced 62.4% (rate ratio [RR], 0.38; 95% confidence inter val [CI95], 0.27-0.53) at the general hospital and 70.2% (RR, 0.30; CI95, 0.17-0.53) at the pediatric hospital. After adjusting for the reduction in injury rate due to factors other than device implementation, the IVCR injury rate was reduced 54.5% (adjusted RR, 0.46; CI95, 0.32-0.65) at the general hospital and 57.2% (adjusted RR, 0.43; CI95, 0.24-0.78) at the pediatric hospital. Approximately 94% of survey respondents (n=478, response rate=51%) were satisfied with the device and recommended continued use. However, needles still were being used for activities that could have been performed with the needleless system because of compatibility, accessibility, and other technical problems related to the device.

Conclusions:

The device was effective in reducing the rate of reported IVCR percutaneous injuries and users were satisfied with the device, but barriers to universal use were identified.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , March 1997 , pp. 175 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1997

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.)

References

1. Marcus, R, CDC Cooperative Needlestick Surveillance Group. Surveillance of healthcare workers exposed to blood from patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1118–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. McCormick, RD, Maki, DG. Epidemiology of needle-stick injuries in hospital personnel. Am J Med 1981;70:928–932.Google Scholar
3. Krasinski, K, LaCouture, R, Holzman, RS. Effect of changing needle disposal systems on needle puncture injuries. Infect Control 1987;8:59–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Ribner, BS, Landry, MN, Gholson, GL, Linden, LA. Impact of a rigid, puncture resistant container system upon needlestick injuries. Infect Control 1987;8:63–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Edmond, M, Khakoo, R, McTaggart, B, Solomon, R. Effect of bedside needle disposal units on needle recapping frequency and needlestick injury. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9:114–116.Google Scholar
6. Jagger, J, Hunt, EH, Brand-Elnaggar, J, Pearson, RD. Rates of needle-stick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. N Engl J Med 1988;319:284–288.Google Scholar
7. Jagger, J, Pearson, RD. Universal Precautions: still missing the point on needlesticks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:211–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Linnemann, CC, Cannon, C, DeRonde, M, Lanphear, B. Effect of educational programs, rigid sharps containers, and Universal Precautions on reported needlestick injuries in healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:214–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. McCormick, RD, Meisch, MG, Ircink, FG, Maki, DG. Epidemiology of hospital sharps injuries: a 14-year prospective study in the pre-AIDS and AIDS era. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):301S–307S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Kroc, K, Pugliese, G, Hughes, L, Hardy, M. Implementing Safer Needle Devices. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Association; 1992.Google Scholar
11. Haiduven, DJ, DeMaio, TM, Stevens, DA. A five-year study of needlestick injuries: significant reduction associated with communication, education, and convenient placement of sharps containers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:265–271.Google Scholar
12. Gerberding, JL. Needlestick prevention: new paradigms for research. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:257–258.Google Scholar
13. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens: final rule. Federal Register. 12 6, 1991;56:64004–64182.Google Scholar
14. Benson, JS. FDA Safety Alert: Needlestick and Other Risks From Hypodermic Needles on Secondary IV Administration Sets—Piggyback and Intermittent IV. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 04 16, 1992.Google Scholar
15. Emergency Care Research Institute. Needlestick prevention devices. Health Devices 1994;23:316–369.Google Scholar
16. Gartner, K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:75–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Skolnick, R, LaRocca, J, Barba, D, Paicius, L. Evaluation and implementation of a needleless intravenous system: making needlesticks a needless problem. Am J Infect Control 1993; 21:39–41.Google Scholar
18. Chiarello, LA, Nagin, D, Laufer, F. Report to the Legislature: Pilot Study of Needlestick Prevention Devices. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Health; 03 1992.Google Scholar
19. Wugofski, L. Needlestick prevention devices: a pointed discussion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:295–298.Google Scholar
20. Olishifski, JB. Occupational hearing loss, noise, and hearing conservation. In: Zenz, C, ed. Occupational Medicine: Principles and Practical Applications. Chicago, IL: Yearbook Medical Publishers; 1988.Google Scholar
21. Owens-Schwab, E, Fraser, VJ. Needleless and needle protection devices: a second look at efficacy and selection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:657–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Whitby, M, Stead, P, Najman, JM. Needlestick injury: impact of a recapping device and an associated education program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Becker, MH, Janz, NK, Band, J, et al. Noncompliance with niversal Precautions policy: why do physicians and nurses recap needles? Am J Infect Control 1990;18:232–239.Google Scholar
24. Koopman, PAR. Confidence interval for the ratio of two binomial proportions. Biometrics 1984;40:513–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Aday, LA. Designing and Conducting Health Surveys. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1989:97.Google Scholar
26. Short, L, Chamberland, M, Culver, D, et al. Underreporting of needlestick injuries among health-care workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15(suppl):20. Abstract.Google Scholar
27. Hamory, BH. Underreporting of needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 1983;11:174–177.Google Scholar
28. Murphy, CA. Increasing the response rate of reluctant professionals to mail surveys. Appl Nurs Res 1993;6:137–141.Google Scholar
29. Beacon, R, Bourguignon, J, Fowler, D, Gardner, C. Evaluation of a needle-free intravenous access system. J Intraven Nurs 1992;15:11–16.Google Scholar
30. Wolfrum, J. A follow-up evaluation to a needle-free IV system. Nurs Manage 1994;25:33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar