Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-z4vvc Total loading time: 0.285 Render date: 2021-03-01T07:13:25.059Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Differences in Percutaneous Injury Patterns in A Multi-Hospital System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Hilary M. Babcock
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Victoria Fraser
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Abstract

Objective:

Determine differences in patterns of percutaneous injuries (PIs) in different types of hospitals.

Design:

Case series of injuries occurring from 1997 to 2001.

Setting:

Large midwestern healthcare system with a consolidated occupational health database from 9 hospitals, including rural and urban, community and teaching (1 pediatric, 1 adult) facilities, ranging from 113 to 1,400 beds.

Participants:

Healthcare workers injured between 1997 and 2001.

Results:

Annual injury rates for all hospitals decreased during the study period from 21 to 16.5/100 beds (chi-square for trend = 22.7; P = .0001). Average annual injury rates were higher at larger hospitals (22.5 vs 9.5 Pis/100 beds; P = .0001). Among small hospitals, rural hospitals had higher rates than did urban hospitals (14.87 vs 8.02 PIs/100 beds; P = .0143). At small hospitals, an increased proportion of injuries occurred in the emergency department (13.7% vs 8.6%; P = .0004), operating room (32.3% vs 25.4%; P = .0002), and ICU (12.3% vs 9.4%; P = .0225), compared with large hospitals. Rural hospitals had higher injury rates in the radiology department (7.7% vs 2%; P = .0015) versus urban hospitals. Injuries at the teaching hospitals occurred more commonly on the wards (28.8% vs 24%; P = .0021) and in ICUs (11.4% vs 7.8%; P = .0006) than at community hospitals. Injuries involving butterfly needles were more common at pediatric versus adult hospitals (15.8% vs 6.5%; P = .0001). The prevalence of source patients infected with HIV and hepatitis C was higher at large hospitals.

Conclusions:

Significant differences exist in injury rates and patterns among different types of hospitals. These data can be used to target intervention strategies.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1.Bell, DM, Shapiro, CN, Ciesielski, CA, Chamberland, ME. Preventing bloodborne pathogen transmission from health-care workers to patients: the CDC perspective. Surg Clin North Am 1995;75:11891203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Panlilio, AL, Cardo, DM, Campbell, S, et al. Estimate of the annual number of percutaneous injuries in US healthcare workers. Presented at the 4th Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare Associated Infections; March 5-9, 2000; Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
3.Orenstein, R, Reynolds, L, Karabaic, M, Lamb, A, Markowitz, SM, Wong, ES. Do protective devices prevent needlestick injuries among health care workers? Am J Infect Control 1995;23:344351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Lawrence, LW, Delclos, GL, Felknor, SA, et al.The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous connection system: an assessment by injury rate and user satisfaction. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:175182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.MacPherson, J. The interlink needleless intravenous system did not reduce the number of needlestick injuries in Christchurch hospital operating theatres. N Z Med J 1996;109:387388.Google Scholar
6.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers during phlebotomy procedures—Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. MMWR 1997;46:2125.Google Scholar
7.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/hcupnet.htm. Accessed October 2002.Google Scholar
8.Akduman, D, Kim, LE, Parks, RL, et al.Use of personal protective equipment and operating room behaviors in four surgical subspecialties: personal protective equipment and behaviors in surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:110114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Jeffe, DB, Mutha, S, Kim, LE, Evanoff, BA, Fraser, VJ. Evaluation of a preclinical, educational and skills-training program to improve students' use of blood and body fluid precautions: one-year follow-up. Prev Med 1999;29:365373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Jeffe, DB, Mutha, S, L'Ecuyer, PB, et al.Healthcare workers' attitudes and compliance with universal precautions: gender, occupation, and specialty differences. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:710712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.L'Ecuyer, PB, Schwab, EO, Iademarco, E, Barr, N, Aton, EA, Fraser, VJ. Randomized prospective study of the impact of three needleless intravenous systems on needlestick injury rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:803808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Mangione, CM, Gerberding, JL, Cummings, SR. Occupational exposure to HIV: frequency and rates of underreporting of percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposures by medical housestaff. Am J Med, 1991;90:8590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Tandberg, D, Stewart, K, Doezema, D. Under-reporting of contaminated needlestick injuries in emergency health care workers. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:6670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 4 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 1st March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Differences in Percutaneous Injury Patterns in A Multi-Hospital System
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Differences in Percutaneous Injury Patterns in A Multi-Hospital System
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Differences in Percutaneous Injury Patterns in A Multi-Hospital System
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *