Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:47:55.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Safety-Engineered Device Implementation: Does It Introduce Bias in Percutaneous Injury Reporting?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

SeJean Sohn,
Janet Eagan and
Kent A. Sepkowitz
SeJean Sohn
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Infectious Disease Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York
Janet Eagan
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Infectious Disease Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York
Kent A. Sepkowitz*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Infectious Disease Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York
*
Infectious Disease Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To examine whether implementation of safety-engineered devices in 2001 had an effect on rates of percutaneous injury (PI) reported by HCWs.

Design:

Before-and-after intervention trial comparing 3-year preintervention (1998–2001) and 2-year postintervention (2001–2002) periods. PI data from anonymous, self-administered surveys were prospectively entered into CDC NaSH software.

Setting:

A 427-bed, tertiary-care hospital in Manhattan.

Participants:

HCWs who attended state-mandated training sessions and completed the survey (1,132 preintervention; 821 postintervention).

Intervention:

Implementation of a “safer-needle system” composed of various safety-engineered devices for needle-safe TV delivery-insertion, blood collection, and intramuscular-subcutaneous injection.

Results:

Preintervention, the overall annual rate of PIs self-reported on the survey was 36.5 per 100 respondents, compared with 13.9 per 100 respondents postintervention (P < .01). The annual rate of formally reported PIs decreased from 8.3 to 3.1 per 100 respondents (P < .01). Report rates varied by occupational group (P ≤ .02). The overall rate did not change between study periods (22.7% to 22.3%), although reporting improved among nurses (23.6% to 44.4%, P = .03) and worsened among building services staff (90.5% to 50%, P = .03). HCWs with greater numbers of Pis self-reported on the survey were less likely to formally report injuries (P < .01). The two most common reasons for nonreport (ie, thought injury was low risk or believed patient was low risk for blood-borne disease) did not vary from preintervention to postintervention.

Conclusions:

Safety-engineered device implementation decreased rates of Pis formally reported and self-reported on the survey. However, this intervention, with concomitant intensive education, had varying effects on reporting behavior by occupation and a minimal effect on overall reporting rates.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 25 , Issue 7 , July 2004, pp. 543 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2004

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Doebbeling, BN. Percutaneous injury: risks and management. In: Schlossberg, D, ed. Current Therapy of Infectious Disease. St. Louis: Mosby; 2000:402–407.Google Scholar
2.U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table B-1: employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry. In: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Employment Situation: April 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor; 2002. Available at stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm. Accessed June 1, 2003.Google Scholar
3.Panlilio, AL, Cardo, DM, Campbell, S, et al.Estimate of the annual number of percutaneous injuries in U.S. health-care workers. Presented at the 4th Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections; March 5-9, 2000; Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
4.Perry, J. CDC releases national needlestick estimates. Advances in Exposure Prevention 2000;5:19.Google Scholar
5.Alvarado-Ramy, F, Beltrami, EM, Short, LJ, 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
6.Mendelson, MH, Lin-Chen, BY, 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;24:105–112.Google Scholar
7.Harmory, BH. Underreporting of needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 1983;11:174–177.Google Scholar
8.Alvarado, F, Panlilio, A, Cardo, D, NaSH Surveillance Group. Percutaneous injury reporting in US hospitals, 1998. Presented at the 4th Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections; March 5-9, 2000; Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
9.Gartner, K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:75–79.Google Scholar
10.Gershon, RR, Pearse, L, Grimes, M, Flanagan, PA, Vlahov, D. Impact of multifocused interventions on sharps injury rates at an acute-care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:806–811.Google Scholar
11.Tan, L, Hawk, JC 3rdSterling, ML. Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs: preventing needlestick injuries in health care settings. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:929–936.Google Scholar
12.Nguyen, M, Paton, S, Villeneuve, PJ. Surveillance of healthcare workers exposed to blood/body fluids and bloodborne pathogens: 1 April, 2000 to 31 March, 2001. Can Commun Dis Rep 2001;27:201–209.Google Scholar
13.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;23:344–351.Google Scholar
14.Jagger, J, Bentley, MB. Injuries from vascular access devices: high risk and preventable. Journal of Intravenous Nursing 1997;20(6 suppl):S33–S39.Google Scholar
15.Jagger, J, Hunt, EH, Pearson, RD. Sharp object injuries in the hospital: causes and strategies for prevention. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:227–231.Google Scholar
16.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
17.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance: National Surveillance System for Health Care Workers. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2000. Available at www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/SURVEILL/nash.htm. Accessed April 1, 2003.Google Scholar
18.Fleiss, JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, ed. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981.Google Scholar
19.Rothman, KJ, Greenland, S, eds. Modern Epidemiology, ed. 2. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998.Google Scholar
20.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
21.Rabaud, C, Zanea, A, Mur, JM. Occupational exposure to blood: search for a relation between personality and behavior. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:564–574.Google Scholar
22.Haiduven, DJ, Simpkins, SM, Phillips, ES, Stevens, DA. A survey of percutaneous/mucocutaneous injury reporting in a public teaching hospital. J Hosp Infect 1999;41:151–154.Google Scholar
23.Resnic, FS, Noerdlinger, MA. Occupational exposure among medical students and house staff at a New York City Medical Center. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:75–80.Google Scholar
24.Rattner, SL, Norman, SA, Berlin, JA. Percutaneous injuries on the “front line:” a survey of housestaff and nurses. Am J Prev Med 1994;10:372–377.Google Scholar