Skip to main content Accessibility help

Needlestick Injury Rates According to Different Types of Safety-Engineered Devices: Results of a French Multicenter Study

  • William Tosini (a1) (a2), Céline Ciotti (a2), Floriane Goyer (a2), Isabelle Lolom (a2), François L'Hériteau (a3), Dominique Abiteboul (a4) (a2), Gerard Pellissier (a2) and Elisabeth Bouvet (a1) (a2)...



To evaluate the incidence of needlestick injuries (NSIs) among different models of safety-engineered devices (SEDs) (automatic, semiautomatic, and manually activated safety) in healthcare settings.


This multicenter survey, conducted from January 2005 through December 2006, examined all prospectively documented SED-related NSIs reported by healthcare workers to their occupational medicine departments. Participating hospitals were asked retrospectively to report the types, brands, and number of SEDs purchased, in order to estimate SED-specific rates of NSI.


Sixty-one hospitals in France.


More than 22 million SEDs were purchased during the study period, and a total of 453 SED-related NSIs were documented. The mean overall frequency of NSIs was 2.05 injuries per 100,000 SEDs purchased. Device-specific NSI rates were compared using Poisson approximation. The 95% confidence interval was used to define statistical significance. Passive (fully automatic) devices were associated with the lowest NSI incidence rate. Among active devices, those with a semiautomatic safety feature were significantly more effective than those with a manually activated toppling shield, which in turn were significantly more effective than those with a manually activated sliding shield (P < .001, x 2 test). The same gradient of SED efficacy was observed when the type of healthcare procedure was taken into account.


Passive SEDs are most effective for NSI prevention. Further studies are needed to determine whether their higher cost may be offset by savings related to fewer NSIs and to a reduced need for user training.


Corresponding author

UFR de Medecine Bichat, GERES, 16 rue Henri Huchard, F-75018 Paris, France


Hide All
1. Sohn, SJ, Eagan, J, Sepkowitz, KA, Zuccotti, G. Effect of implementing safety-engineered devices on percutaneous injury epidemiology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:536542.
2. Circulaire DGS/DH n_98/249 du20/4/1998 relative à la prévention de la transmission d'agents infectieux véhiculés par le sang ou les liquides biologiques lors des soins dans les établissements de santé. Paris: Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité, 1998. Accessed February 8, 2010.
3. Tuma, SJ, Sepkowitz, KA. Efficacy of safety-engineered device implementation in the prevention of percutaneous injuries: a review of published studies. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:11591170.
4. 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;56:566574.
5. Adams, D, Elliott, TSJ. Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study. J Hosp Infect 2006;64:5055.
6. Whitby, M, McLaws, ML, Slater, K. Needlestick injuries in a major teaching hospital: the worthwhile effect of hospital-wide replacement of conventional hollow-bore needles. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:180186.
7. Jagger, J, Perry, J, Gomaa, A, Kornblatt Phillips, E. The impact of US policies to protect healthcare workers from bloodborne pathogens: the critical role of safety-engineered devices. J Infect Public Health 2008;1:6267.
8. Lamontagne, F, Abiteboul, D, Lolom, I, et al. Role of safety-engineered devices in preventing needlestick injuries in 32 French hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:18:23.
9. Chiarello, LA. Selection of needlestick prevention devices: a conceptual framework for approaching product evaluation. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:386395.
10. Alvarado-Ramy, F, Beltramy, EM, Short, LJ, et al. Comprehensive approach to percutaneous injury prevention during phlebotomy: results of a multicenter study, 1993-1995. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:97104.
11. Iinuma, Y, Igawa, J, Takeshita, M, et al. Passive safety devices are more effective at reducing needlestick injuries. J Hosp Infect 2005;61:360361.
12. Tarantola, A, Golliot, F, Astagneau, P, et al. Occupational blood and body fluids exposures in healthcare workers: four-year surveillance from the Northern France Network. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:357363.
13. L'Hériteau, F, Tarantola, A, Olivier, M, et al. Variation in blood and body fluids exposure when small-gauge needles or peripheral venous catheters were implicated: results of a 4-year surveillance in France. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:215217.
14. Venier, AF, Vincent, A, L'Hériteau, F, et al. Surveillance of occupational blood and body fluid exposures among French healthcare workers in 2004. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:11961201.
15. Groupe d'Etude sur le Risque d'Exposition des Soignants aux Agents Infectieux. Guide des matériels de sécurité. Paris: Ministère de la Santé, 2004. Accessed February 8, 2010.
16. De Carli, G, Puro, V, Jagger, J. Needlestick-prevention devices: we should already be there. J Hosp Infect 2009;71:183184.
17. Patel, N, Tignor, G. Device-specific sharps injury and usage rates: an analysis by hospital department. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:7784.
18. Ippolito, G, DeCarli, G, Puro, V, et al. Device-specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian health care workers. JAMA 1994;272:607610.
19. Mendelson, MH, BY, Lin-Chen, Solomon, R, et al. 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;24:105112.
20. Peate, WE Preventing needlesticks in emergency medical system workers. J Occup Environ Med 2001;43:554557.
21. Weinbren, MJ, Hardwick, A, Perinpanayagam, RM, Thayalan, AS. Lancets as a source of sharps injuries. J Hosp Infect 1998;38:235236.
22. Coté, CJ, Roth, AG, Wheeler, M, et al. Traditional versus new needle retractable IV catheters in children: are they really safer, and whom are they protecting? Anesth Analg 2003;96:387391.
23. Prunet, B, Meaudre, E, Montcriol, A, et al. A prospective randomized trial of two safety peripheral intravenous catheters. Anesth Analg 2008;107: 155158.
24. Haiduven, D, Applegarth, S, Shroff, M. An experimental method for detecting blood splatter from retractable phlebotomy and intravascular devices. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:127130.
25. Puglieses, G, Germanson, TP, Barthley, J, et al. Evaluating sharps safety devices: meeting OSHA's intent. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22: 456-458.
26. Isaya, NT, Barger, LK, Cade, BE, et al. Extended work duration and the risk of self-reported percutaneous injuries in interns. JAMA 2006;296: 10551062.
27. De Graaf, R, Van Zessen, G. Occupational risk of HIV infection among Western healthcare professionals posted in AIDS endemic areas. AIDS Care 1998;10:441452.
28. Fisman, DN, Harris, AD, Rubin, M, Sorock, GS, Mittleman, MA. Fatigue increased the risk of injury from sharp devices in medical trainees: results of a case-crossover study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:1017.


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed