ObjectiveNeedlestick and sharps injuries (NSIs) involving healthcare workers (HCWs) are worldwide under surveillance since long time; the implementation of the European Directive 32/2010 regarding the mandatory use of safety-engineered devices (SEDs) seems to have reduced the number of these accidents. Our surveillance investigated the frequency and the modality of SED-related NSIs in the Piedmont region to verify changes in the epidemiology of these events.MethodsWe analysed the exposure records of NSIs, device usage data and structural data of 42 acute care hospitals and compared conventional and safety devices. We calculated the accident rates per 100 000 needles and, as a measure of SED efficacy, the relative risk between the use of safety and non-safety devices with a 95% CI. We also described the dynamics of the NSIs and the most involved professional groups of HCWs, procedures and devices.ResultsTotal and specific device accident rates for 100 000 needles were lower with the use of SEDs. In 2015–2016, there were 1640 NSIs, with a decreasing absolute number during the observation period; 18% were SEDs related. Half of the total accidents with SEDs occurred in the patient’s room, and nurses were involved in 78% of the cases. The most involved devices were the butterfly needles and peripheral venous catheters, and the most involved procedures were venous sampling (40%) and phlebotherapy (16%). The exposures occurred mostly during the procedure, and 45% of the SED-related injuries occurred during the disposal of the device; 92% of the SEDs involved had a manual activation mechanism.ConclusionIn agreement with the results of other European studies, our results show that SEDs reduce the risk of percutaneous exposure of HCWs, but in introducing SEDs, we must select those with a higher level of safety (with a passive activation mechanism) and improve the healthcare staff training programmes.

No abstract

Background Needlestick injuries represent a major occupational hazard for healthcare workers as they lead to exposure to biological fluids, with higher risk of bloodborne pathogen infections. In order to minimise this risk, safety-engineered devices (SEDs) have been developed and introduced into the daily hospital practice. An annual survey, conducted by the Department of Public Health Sciences of the University of Turin since 1999, has been evaluating the number of percutaneous accidents in the hospitals of Piedmont (Italy), assessing also the impact of the introduction of SEDs on the injury incidence rate. The aim of this study is therefore to evaluate the efficacy of SEDs in preventing needlestick injuries. Methods Data about percutaneous injuries and needle consumption were obtained from 42 hospitals of Piedmont for the years 2014-2017, concerning all the types of needles and sharps most commonly used in the departments. After considering the overall trend of percutaneous events, standardised rates for 100000 needles were computed for both SEDs and conventional devices. The same analysis was performed considering all sharps except standard needles, which are mainly used for procedures not involving contact with patients (e.g. drug dilution). Results The comparison between the incidence rates with SEDs and conventional devices showed a slightly protective effect of SEDs in 2014, 2016 and 2017, with an incidence rate ratio ranging from 0.78 to 0.97. However, by removing the confounding effect of standard needles, the analysis yielded strong statistical evidence of the protective effect of SEDs for all years (RR = 0.28-0.63). Moreover, the total number of percutaneous events shows a trend of general decrease. Conclusions Safety devices have proved to be significantly effective in the prevention of needlestick injuries, and their introduction into the daily practice is one of the factors who could contribute to a reduction of percutaneous events. Key messages Safety-engineered devices are a very important tool in the prevention of injuries in healthcare workers, and their introduction into hospital practice has reduced the number of percutaneous injuries. Safety-engineered devices are significantly protective against percutaneous injuries compared to conventional ones, especially for procedures involving contact with patients (therefore at high risk).