Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-26T08:27:55.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sharp-Device Injuries to Hospital Staff Nurses in 4 Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Sean P. Clarke ,
Maria Schubert  and
Thorsten Körner
Sean P. Clarke*
Affiliation:
Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research and School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Maria Schubert
Affiliation:
Institute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Thorsten Körner
Affiliation:
University of Heidelberg Clinic, Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, Germany
*
Associate Director, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, University of Pennsylvania, 420 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6096 (sclarke@nursing.upenn.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To compare sharp-device injury rates among hospital staff nurses in 4 Western countries.

Design.

Cross-sectional survey.

Setting.

Acute-care hospital nurses in the United States (Pennsylvania), Canada (Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario), the United Kingdom (England and Scotland), and Germany.

Participants.

A total of 34,318 acute-care hospital staff nurses in 1998-1999.

Results.

Survey-based rates of retrospectively-reported needlestick injuries in the previous year for medical-surgical unit nurses ranged from 146 injuries per 1,000 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) in the US sample to 488 injuries per 1,000 FTEs in Germany. In the United States and Canada, very high rates of sharp-device injury among nurses working in the operating room and/or perioperative care were observed (255 and 569 injuries per 1,000 FTEs per year, respectively). Reported use of safety-engineered sharp devices was considerably lower in Germany and Canada than it was in the United States. Some variation in injury rates was seen across nursing specialties among North American nurses, mostly in line with the frequency of risky procedures in the nurses' work.

Conclusions.

Studies conducted in the United States over the past 15 years suggest that the rates of sharp-device injuries to front-line nurses have fallen over the past decade, probably at least in part because of increased awareness and adoption of safer technologies, suggesting that regulatory strategies have improved nurse safety. The much higher injury rate in Germany may be due to slow adoption of safety devices. Wider diffusion of safer technologies, as well as introduction and stronger enforcement of occupational safety and health regulations, are likely to decrease sharp-device injury rates in various countries even further.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , April 2007 , pp. 473 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007

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.Jagger, J, De Carli, G, Perry, J, Puro, V, Ippolito, G. Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens: epidemiology and prevention. In: Wenzel, RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003:430–466.Google Scholar
2.Lee, JM, Botteman, MF, Xanthakos, N, Nicklasson, L. Needlestick injuries in the United States: epidemiologic, economic, and quality of life issues. AAOHN J 2005;53:117–133.Google Scholar
3.Aiken, LH, Clarke, SP, Sloane, DM, et al.Nurses' reports on hospital care in five countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001;20:43–53.Google Scholar
4.Clarke, SP. International collaborations in nursing research: the experience of the International Hospital Outcomes Study. Appl Nurs Res 2004;17:134–136.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Aiken, LH, Sloane, DM, Klocinski, JL. Hospital nurses' occupational exposure to blood: prospective, retrospective and institutional reports. Am J Public Health 1997;87:103–107.Google Scholar
6.Dillman, DA. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York:Wiley; 1978.Google Scholar
7.Panlilio, AL, Orelien, JG, Srivastava, PU, Jagger, J, Cohn, RD, Cardo, DM. The NaSH Surveillance Group (CDC). The EPINet Data Sharing Network. Estimate of the annual number of percutaneous injuries among hospital-based healthcare workers in the United States, 1997-1998. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:556–562.Google Scholar
8.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Clarke, SP, Sloane, DM, Aiken, LH. Effects of hospital staffing and organizational climate on needlestick injuries to nurses. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1115–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Clarke, SP, Rockett, JL, Sloane, DM, Aiken, LH. Organizational climate, staffing, and safety equipment as predictors of needlestick injuries and near-misses in hospital nurses. Am J Infect Control 2002;30:207–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Bird, C. Needlestick infection: up close and personal. Healthcare Equipment and Supplies. 2001, January 1. Available at http://www.hesmagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2003380. Accessed March 12, 2007.Google Scholar
12.May, D, Brewer, S. Sharps injury: prevention and management. Nurs Stand 2001;15:45–52.Google Scholar
13.Pearce, L. Silent epidemic. Nurs Stand 2001;15:16–17.Google Scholar
14.Watterson, L. Sharp thinking. Nurs Stand 2005;20:20–22.Google Scholar
15.Health Canada. Update- Surveillance of health care workers exposed to blood, body fluids and bloodborne pathogens in Canadian hospital settings: 1 April, 2000, to 31 March, 2002. Canada Communicable Dis Rep 2003;29. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/03pdf/cdr2924.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2007.Google Scholar
16.Cervini, P, Bell, C. Brief report: needlestick injury and inadequate post-exposure practice in medical students. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:419–421.Google Scholar
17.Petruk, J. Sharps injuries: time to change our equipment and attitudes. Can Nurse 2003;99:18–22.Google Scholar
18.Service Employees International Union. Safer Needles Now. Available at: http://www.saferneedlesnow.ca Accessed March 12, 2006.Google Scholar
19.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;20:110–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Berguer, R, Heller, PJ. Strategies for preventing sharps injuries in the operating room. Surg Clin North Am 2005;85:1299–1305.Google Scholar
21.Mülder, K. Nadelstichverletzungen: Der bagatellisierte “Massenunfall” [Needlestick injuries: the trivialized mass accident]. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2005;102:558–561. Available at: http://arzteblatte.de/v4/archiv/pdf.asp?id=45662. Acessed march 12, 2007.Google Scholar
22.Beie, M. Technischer Infektionsschutz—Untersuchung zum beruflichen Risiko durch blutübertragene Infektionserreger für Beschäftigte des Gesundheitswesens [Technical Infection Prevention: Examination of Health Care Workers' Risks of Bloodborne Infection Exposures]. Freiburg: FFAS;2001.Google Scholar
23.Hofmann, F, Kralj, N, Beie, M. Kanülenstichverletzungen im Gesundheitsdienst—Häufigkeit, Ursachen und Präventionsstrategien [Needlestick injuries in health care: frequency, causes and preventive strategies]. Gesundheitswesen 2002;64:259–266.Google Scholar
24. Nadelstichverletzung ist kein Bagatellunfall [A needlestick injury is not a trivial accident]. Ärzte Zeitung May 9, 2005. Available at: http://www.aerztezeitung.de/docs/2005/05/09/083a1401.asp?cat=/medizin/umweltmedizin. Accessed March 12, 2007.Google Scholar
25.Knüppel, J. Leider kommt es immer noch zu Nadelstichverletzungen [Unfortunately it always still comes to needlestick injuries]. Pflege Aktuell 2005;59:232–233.Google Scholar
26.Asch, DA, Jedrziewski, MK, Christakis, NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Health Data 2002. Paris; OECD: 2002.Google Scholar
28.Blegen, MA, Vaughn, T, Pepper, G, et al.Patient and staff safety: voluntary reporting. Am J Med Qual 2004;19:67–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Doebbeling, BN, Vaughn, TE, McCoy, KD, et al.Percutaneous injury, blood exposure, and adherence to standard precautions: are hospital-based health care providers still at risk? Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:1006–1013.Google Scholar
30.Perry, J, Parker, G, Jagger, J. EPINet Report: 2001 percutaneous injury rates. Adv Exposure Prev 2003;6:32–36. Available at: http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/epinet. Accessed March 12, 2007.Google Scholar