Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T02:30:16.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevention of Needle-Stick Injuries in Healthcare Facilities: A Meta-Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2015

Lukman H. Tarigan ,
Manuel Cifuentes ,
Margaret Quinn  and
David Kriebel
Lukman H. Tarigan
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia Department of Work Environment, College of Health Sciences University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA
Manuel Cifuentes
Affiliation:
Department of Work Environment, College of Health Sciences University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA
Margaret Quinn
Affiliation:
Department of Work Environment, College of Health Sciences University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA
David Kriebel*
Affiliation:
Department of Work Environment, College of Health Sciences University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA
*
Address all correspondence to David Kriebel, 1 University Ave, RM K202D, Lowell, MA 01854 (David_Kriebel@uml.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the summary effectiveness of different needle-stick injury (NSI)-prevention interventions.

DESIGN

We conducted a meta-analysis of English-language articles evaluating methods for reducing needle stick, sharp, or percutaneous injuries published from 2002 to 2012 identified using PubMed and Medline EBSCO databases. Data were extracted using a standardized instrument. Random effects models were used to estimate the summary effectiveness of 3 interventions: training alone, safety-engineered devices (SEDs) alone, and the combination of training and SEDs.

SETTING

Healthcare facilities, mainly hospitals

PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare workers including physicians, midwives, and nurses

RESULTS

From an initial pool of 250 potentially relevant studies, 17 studies met our inclusion criteria. Six eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness of training interventions, and the summary effect of the training intervention was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50–0.89). The summary effect across the 5 studies that assessed the efficacy of SEDs was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.40–0.64). A total of 8 studies evaluated the effectiveness of training plus SEDs, with a summary effect of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28–0.50).

CONCLUSION

Training combined with SEDs can substantially reduce the risk of NSIs.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36(7):823–829

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 36 , Issue 7 , July 2015 , pp. 823 - 829
Copyright
© 2015 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

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.)

Footnotes

NOTE. Dr. Tarigan passed away suddenly on December 5, 2014, after completing this work and submitting the paper for publication. Dr. Tarigan was deeply committed to improving public health in Indonesia and his untimely passing is a great loss to his country. The coauthors dedicate this paper to his memory and to his family.

References

1. Prüss-Ustün, A, Rapiti, E, Hutin, Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med 2005;48:482–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Tarantola, A, Abiteboul, D, Rachline, A. Infection risks following accidental exposure to blood or body fluids in health care workers: a review of pathogens transmitted in published cases. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:367–375.Google Scholar
3. Beekmann, SE, Vlahov, D, Koziol, DE, McShalley, ED, Schmitt, JM, Henderson, DK. Temporal association between implementation of universal precautions and a sustained, progressive decrease in percutaneous exposures to blood. Clin Infect Dis 1994;18:562–569.Google Scholar
4. Trim, JC, Elliott, TSJ. A review of sharps injuries and preventative strategies. J Hosp Infect 2003;53:237–242.Google Scholar
5. Tuma, S, Sepkowitz, KA. Efficacy of safety-engineered device implementation in the prevention of percutaneous injuries: a review of published studies. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:1159–1170.Google Scholar
6. Yang, L, Mullan, B. Reducing needle stick injuries in healthcare occupations: an integrative review of the literature. ISRN Nurs 2011;2011:315432–315432.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Trapé-Cardoso, M, Schenck, P. Reducing percutaneous injuries at an academic health center: a 5-year review. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:301–305.Google Scholar
8. Azar-Cavanagh, M, Burdt, P, Green-McKenzie, J. Effect of the introduction of an engineered sharps injury prevention device on the percutaneous injury rate in healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:165–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Valls, V, Lozano, MS, Yánez, R, Martínez, MJ, Pascual, F, Lloret, J, et al. Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:1352–1360.Google Scholar
10. Moens, G, Mylle, G, Johannik, K, Van Hoof, R, Helsen, G. Analysing and interpreting routinely collected data on sharps injuries in assessing preventative actions. Occup Med (Lond) 2004;54:245–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Lamontagne, F, Abiteboul, D, Lolom, I, Pellissier, G, Tarantola, A, Descamps, JM, et al. Role of safety-engineered devices in preventing needlestick injuries in 32 French hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:18–23.Google Scholar
12. Sossai, D, Puro, V, Chiappatoli, L, Dagnino, G, Odone, B, Polimeri, A, et al. Using an intravenous catheter system to prevent needlestick injury. Nurs Stand 2010;24:42–46.Google Scholar
13. Alvarado-Ramy, F, Beltrami, EM, Short, LJ, Srivastava, PU, Henry, K, Mendelson, M, et al. A comprehensive approach to percutaneous injury prevention during phlebotomy: results of a multicenter study, 1993–1995. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:97–104.Google Scholar
14. Borenstein, M. Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.Google Scholar
15. Neyeloff, JL, Fuchs, SC, Moreira, LB. Meta-analyses and forest plots using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes 2012;5:52.Google Scholar
16. Higgins, JP, Green, S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1. Cochrane Handbook website. http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Published 2008. Accessed February 19, 2014.Google Scholar
17. Van der Molen, HF, Zwinderman, KAH, Sluiter, JK, Frings-Dresen, M. Interventions to prevent needle stick injuries among health care workers. Work 2012;41:1969–1971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. El Beltagy, K, El-Saed, A, Sallah, M, Balkhy, HH. Impact of infection control educational activities on rates and frequencies of percutaneous injuries (PIs) at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. J Infect Public Health 2012;5:297–303.Google Scholar
19. Mobasherizadeh, S, Ebneshahidi, SA, Mohammadi, NA, Abazari, F. Intervention study of needle stick injury in Iran. Saudi Med J 2005;26:1225–1227.Google ScholarPubMed
20. Zafar, A, Habib, F, Hadwani, R, Ejaz, M, Khowaja, K, Khowaja, R, et al. Impact of infection control activities on the rate of needle stick injuries at a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan over a period of six years: an observational study. BMC Infect Dis 2009;9:78–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Adams, D, Elliott, TS. Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injurdies: a four year prospective study. J Hosp Infect 2006;64:50–55.Google Scholar
22. Brusaferro, S, Calligaris, L, Farneti, F, Gubian, F, Londero, C, Baldo, V. Educational programmes and sharpes injuries in health care workers. Occup Med 2009;59:512–514.Google Scholar
23. Mendelson, MH, Lin-Chen, BY, Solomon, R, Bailey, E, Kogan, G, Goldbold, J. Evaluation of a safety resheathable winged steel needle for prevention of percutaneous injuries associated with intravascular-access procedures among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:105–112.Google Scholar
24. Rogues, AM, Verdun-Esquer, C, Buisson-Valles, I, Laville, MF, Lasheras, A, Sarrat, A, Beaudelle, H, Brochard, P, Gachie, JP. Impact of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries related to phlebotomy procedures in health care workers. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:441–444.Google Scholar
25. Sohn, S, Eagan, J, Sepkowitz, KA, Zuccotti, G. Effect of implementing safety-engineered devices on percutaneous injury epidemiology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:536–542.Google Scholar
26. Whitby, M, McLaws, ML, Slater, K. Needlestick injuries in a major teaching hospital: the worthwhile effect of hospital-wide replacement of hollow-bore needles. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:180–186.Google Scholar
27. Wicker, S, Cinatl, J, Berger, A, Doerr, HW, Gottschalk, R, Rabenau, HF. Determination of risk of infection with blood-borne pathogens following a needlestick injury in hospital workers. Ann Occup Hyg 2008;52:615–622.Google Scholar
28. Babcock, HM, Fraser, V. Differences in percutaneous injury patterns in a multi-hospital system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:731–736.Google Scholar
29. Chakravarthy, MM, Singh, SS, Arora, AA, Sengupta, SS, Munshi, NN. The epinet data of four Indian hospitals on incidence of exposure of healthcare workers to blood and body fluid: a multicentric prospective analysis. Indian J Med Sci 2010;64:540–548.Google Scholar
30. Leigh, JP, Wiatrowski, WJ, Gillen, M, Steenland, NK. Characteristics of persons and jobs with needlestick injuries in a national data set. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:414–420.Google Scholar
31. Ippolito, G, Puro, V, De Carli, G. The Italian Study Group on Occupational Risk of HIV Infection. The risk of occupational human immunodeficiency virus infection in health care workers. Italian multicenter study. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:1451–1458.Google Scholar
32. Elder, A, Paterson, C. Sharps injuries in UK health care: a review of injury rates, viral transmission and potential efficacy of safety devices. Occup Med (Lond) 2006;56:566–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Tosini, W, Ciotti, C, Goyer, F, Lolom, I, L'Hériteau, F, Abiteboul, D, et al. Needlestick injury rates according to different types of safety-engineered devices: results of a French multicenter study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:402–407.Google Scholar
34. Sagoe-Moses, C, Pearson, RD, Perry, J, Jagger, J. Risks to health care workers in developing countries. N Engl J Med 2001;345:538–541.Google Scholar
35. Simonsen, L, Kane, A, Lloyd, J, Zaffran, M, Kane, M. Unsafe injections in the developing world and transmission of bloodborne pathogens: a review. Bull World Health Organ 1999;77:789–800.Google Scholar
36. Tan, L, Hawk, JC 3rd, Sterling, ML. Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs: preventing needlestick injuries in health care settings. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:929–936.Google Scholar
37. Occupational Safety: Selected Cost and Benefit Implications of Needlestick Prevention Devices for Hospital. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office; 2000. GAO-01-60R.Google Scholar
38. Glenngård, AH, Persson, U. Costs associated with sharps injuries in the Swedish health care setting and potential cost savings from needle-stick prevention devices with needle and syringe. Scand J Infect Dis 2009;41:296–302.Google Scholar