Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T07:33:55.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Percutaneous Injury Analysis: Consistent Categorization, Effective Reduction Methods, and Future Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Donna J. Haiduven ,
Esther S. Phillips ,
Karl V. Clemons  and
David A. Stevens
Donna J. Haiduven
Affiliation:
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California
Esther S. Phillips
Affiliation:
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California
Karl V. Clemons
Affiliation:
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California
David A. Stevens*
Affiliation:
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California
*
Department of Medicine, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, 751 S Bascom Ave, San Jose, CA 95128
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To report the results of an 8-year analysis of percutaneous injuries (PI), to describe interventions to decrease these injuries, and to discuss future prevention strategies.

Design:

Using consistent methods, 881 percutaneous injury reports were reviewed, categorized, and analyzed from 1986 through 1993.

Setting:

A 620-bed acute-care county teaching hospital located in San Jose, California, that is affiliated with Stanford University Medical School, Palo Alto, California.

Participants:

Employees of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center who reported percutaneous injuries from 1986 through 1993.

Interventions:

Placement of needle disposal containers in all patient care areas, 1987; education, 1987 to present; communication of percutaneous injury analyses to all departments, 1988 to present; and safety product evaluation and purchases, 1991 to present.

Results:

The total number of PI decreased by 65% (P=.0007) from 1986 through 1993. Recapping injuries decreased from 1986 through 1993 by 88% (P<.0002); interventions that included convenient placement of needle disposal containers and consistent annual education may have contributed to this decrease. Injuries from manipulating intravenous lines or heparin locks decreased in 1992 (P<.03) after purchase of a needleless system for intravenous lines. Injuries from improper disposal or from abrupt patient movement did not decrease significantly over the 8-year period.

Conclusions:

This institution has conducted percutaneous injury analysis for 8 years, utilizing consistent reviewers and categorization methods. Successful interventions have reduced recapping injuries, injuries from manipulating intravenous lines/heparin locks, and the overall numbers of PI. The categories of “Improper Disposal” and “Patient Moved Abruptly” present challenges for future reductions, as well as the recently identified problem of staff not using available safety devices or using them improperly.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 16 , Issue 10 , October 1995 , pp. 582 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1995

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. Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations for preventing transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus to patients during exposure prone and invasive procedures. MMWR 1991;40:1–8.Google Scholar
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Sur veillance Report. 1994;5:19.Google Scholar
3. Mitsui, T, Iwano, K, Masuka, K, et al. Hepatitis C virus infection in medical personnel after needlestick accident. Hepatology 1992;16:1109–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. 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
5. Snedecor, GW, Cochran, WG. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press; 1967.Google Scholar
6. Simpkins, SM, Haiduven, DJ, Stevens, DA. Safety product evaluation: six years of experience. Am J Infect Control. In press.Google Scholar
7. Centers for Disease Control. Surveillance for occupationally acquired HIV infection. MMWR 1992;41:823–825.Google Scholar
8. Anonymous. First results from EpiNet reported: national data-sharing network shows efficacy of safer needle device. Hospital Employee Health 1993;12:105–108.Google Scholar
9. Worthington, K. Computer software available for tracking needlestick injuries … Exposure Prevention Information Network. American Nurse 1993;25:10.Google Scholar
10. Wugofski, L. Needlestick prevention devices: a pointed discussion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:295–298.Google Scholar
11. Anonymous. Sick of needlestick reports? Consider disciplinary panel. Same Day Surgery 1994;18:63–65.Google Scholar