A long-term study of sharps injuries among health care workers in Japan

Nagao, Yoshimasa; Baba, Hisashi; Torii, Keizo; Nagao, Miki; Hatakeyama, Kazuto; Iinuma, Yoshitsugu; Ichiyama, Satoshi; Shimokata, Kaoru; Ohta, Michio

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2006.03.015

Cited by 56 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the majority of injured HCWs were nurses; a finding that has been repeatedly reported in all health care settings [2,3,[7][8][9][10][11]. This is because the nurses constitute the major group of health care workers in all health care settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Pattern of Sharps Injuries in Ophthalmic Practice

Alshihry¹

2013

Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Pattern of Sharps Injuries in Ophthalmic Practice

Alshihry¹

2013

Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The cause of higher recall of PIs may reflect perception rather than reality, yet it is the only rapid, available method of comparison. Given the EPINet rate for all staff is at epidemic levels and accepting the recall rate with reservations, we believe the true rate of PI reflects rates of lowly or moderately resourced healthcare systems 12,13) and is unacceptable when we compare these results with other highly resourced healthcare systems 8,[14][15][16] . In Australia the underreporting rate has ranged from 4-24% 2) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese EPINet and Recall Rates for Percutaneous Injuries: An Epidemic Proportion of Underreporting in the Taiwan Healthcare System

Shiao

McLaws

Lin

et al. 2009

Journal of Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: As an occupational injury, percutaneous injury (PI) can result in chronic morbidity and death for healthcare workers (HCWs). A pilot surveillance system for PIs using the Chinese version of Exposure Prevention Information Network (EPINet) was introduced in Taiwan in 2003. We compared data from EPINet and recall of PIs using a cross-sectional survey for rates to establish the reliability of the new system. Methods: HCWs from hospitals that had implemented EPINet for ≥12 months completed a survey for recall of contaminated PIs sustained between October 2004 and September 2005, type of item involved, and reasons for reporting or not reporting the PI. Comparative data from EPINet for the same period were analyzed. Results: The EPINet rate, 36.1/1,000 HCW (95%CI 31.8-41.1) was almost 5 times lower (p<0.0001) than the PI recall rate for 2,464 HCWs of 170/1,000 HCWs (95%CI 155.4-185.5). Approximately 2.5 PIs were recalled for every 1,000 bed-days of care. The recall rate by physicians was 268.3/1,000, 188.5/1,000 for nurses, 88.9/1,000 for medical technologists and 81.3/1,000 for support staff. Hollow-bore needle items most commonly recorded on EPINet includ, disposable needles and syringes were underreported by 81%, vacuum tube holder/needles by 67%, and arterial blood gas needles by 75%. Nearly 63% of the reasons for underreporting were related to the complexity of the reporting process, while 37% were associated with incorrect knowledge about the risks associated with PIs. Conclusions: EPINet data underestimates a commonplace occupational injury with nearly four in five PIs not reported. Addressing the real barriers to reporting must begin with hospital administrators impressing on HCWs that reporting is essential for designing appropriate safety interventions. (J Occup Health 2009; 51: 132-136)

show abstract

“…These are the groups working in hospital wards (54.5%) and operating rooms (24.7%), where the procedures take longer, are more complicated and involve more HCW. 14,15 Chan et al conducted a study where more NSI occurred in outpatient and inpatient clinics (33.6%) than in the operating room (25.2%). 5 There is a significant difference between oral surgeons and general dentists.…”

Section: Risk Factors For Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Studies by Nagao et al also revealed that nurses sustain a NSI most often (72.2%), followed by doctors (19.7%) and clinical laboratory workers (3.5%). 14 In studies conducted by Prabhu et al, common causes of NSI were: two-handed recapping and needle flexing. 12 According to Quinn et al, other very risky situations are: injecting medications (31%), placing sharps in a container (27%), administering fingerstick/heelstick (23%) and drawing blood (22%).…”

Section: Risk Factors For Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%