Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel

Abstract

Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Safe intravenous systems versus regular systems RCT, Outcome 3 Incidence of blood leakage......... Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Safe intravenous systems versus regular systems CBA, Outcome 1 Number of needlestick injuries..... Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Safe intravenous systems versus regular systems ITS, Outcome

Factors Affecting Patient Safety Culture in Terms of Compliance With Practices Promoting Prevention of Bloodborne Pathogens Among General Hospital Nurses

“…Therefore, these speci c cases should be included in periodic infection education for nurses, and further training should be provided on precautions while using sharp instruments. In addition, appropriate administration or legislation should be implemented to prevent recapping of used needles and to promote the wider use of safe injection devices [15,25]. Furthermore, we found that more nurses received infection education at hospitals than during their regular nursing curriculum at school.…”

Evidence-based occupational health and safety interventions: a comprehensive overview of reviews

“…One review dealt with different interventions for the prevention of occupational injuries in the agricultural sector,33 one SR examined the effects of interventions for the prevention of occupational injuries in the construction industry34 and another review examined the effects of alcohol and drug screening of professional drivers on accidents 35. Four SRs searched for safety products and practices in the health sector to prevent occupational injuries 36–39…”

“…Parantainen et al 37 showed that the use of blunt surgical suture needles reduced the risk of glove perforation (QoE: high) and the number of self-reported needle stick injuries (QoE: moderate) compared with sharp suture needles. Reddy et al 38 found that the use of safe blood collection systems showed inconsistent effects on the number of needle stick injuries (QoE: very low). The use of safe passive intravenous systems showed a decrease in needle stick injuries and a reduction in the incidence of blood splashes (QoE: very low).…”

Economic evaluation of safety-engineered devices and training in reducing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers in South Africa

“…[15][16][17][18][19][20] Training in universal precautions and adoption of safetyengineered devices (SEDs) are two key interventions that have been shown to reduce NSIs. [21][22][23][24][25] On pooled analysis of five studies, Harb et al [22] reported an effectiveness of 46% (relative risk (RR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 -0.71) for SEDs in reducing NSIs among HCWs. [22] Similarly, Tarigan et al [23] estimated that SEDs were 49% (RR 0.51,…”

“…In contrast, a fourth review found only low-quality evidence to suggest that SEDs may reduce NSIs, but moderate (statistically non-significant) evidence that they could increase blood splashes by 60% (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.08 -2.36). [24] The few studies that have attempted to assess the cost-effectiveness of SEDs or training in reducing NSIs were either single-centre studies with limited cost perspectives [26][27][28][29] or did not undertake any uncertainty analysis. [27] With these limited cost perspectives, lack of methodological robustness and the fact that these studies were all done in high-income settings with a low HIV prevalence, there is currently insufficient evidence to guide decision-making on the adoption of SEDs and training programmes (TPs) in SA.…”