Factors Associated with Occupational Needle Stick and Sharps Injuries among Hospital Healthcare Workers in Bale Zone, Southeast Ethiopia

Abstract

BackgroundNeedle stick and sharps injuries are occupational hazards to healthcare workers. Every day healthcare workers are exposed to deadly blood borne pathogens through contaminated needles and other sharp objects. About twenty blood borne pathogens can be transmitted through accidental needle stick and sharp injury. The study was conducted to determine the lifetime and past one year prevalence of needle stick and sharps injuries and factors associated with the past one year injuries among hospital healthcare workers in Southeast Ethiopia.MethodsAn institutional based cross sectional study was conducted in December 2014 among healthcare workers in four hospitals of Bale zone, Southeast of Ethiopia. A total of 362 healthcare workers were selected randomly from each department in the hospitals. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaire. The collected data were entered into Epi-Info version 3.5 and analyzed using SPSS version 20.0. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent effect of each independent variable on the outcome variable. Written informed consent was secured from the participants.ResultsThe prevalence of lifetime needle stick and sharp injury was 37.1% with 95% CI of 32.0% to 42.5%. The prevalence of injury within the past one year was 19.1% with 95% CI of 14.9% to 23.3%. Emergency ward was a department with highest needle stick and sharp injury (31.7%). The main cause of injury was syringe needles (69.8%). Participants who practiced needle recapping had higher odds of needle stick and sharp injury within the past 12 months (AOR = 3.23, 95% CI: 1.78, 5.84) compared to their counterparts.ConclusionsNearly one out of five respondents had experienced needle stick and/or sharp injury at least once within past one year. There were practices and behaviors that put healthcare workers at risk of needle stick and sharp injury at the study area. Needle recapping was key modifiable risk behavior. Health policy makers and hospital administrators should formulate strategies to improve the working condition for healthcare workers and increase their adherence to universal precautions.

Occupational exposure to sharps injury among healthcare providers in Ethiopia regional hospitals

“…Opposite to the conclusion by Bekele et al [16], our study revealed that there was no statistically significant association between HCP work experience and rate of sharps injury. Our finding also supported by a study conducted in Northern Ethiopia [20] where work experience did not affect the risk of sharps injury.…”

“…However, the prevalence rate in our study was higher than the study report by Mbaisi et al [10] in Kenya, Gessessew and Kahsu [26] and Bekele et al [16] in Ethiopia. This inconsistency may be due to the difference in the operationalization of sharps injury, study population, the number of HCP in the facility, different work environment and culture and availability of resources [20].…”

“…In this study, the prevalence of sharps injury was highest in Midwifery professionals compared with nurses, physicians, health officers, emergency surgeons, and anesthetist. However, several earlier studies [16, 20] concluded sharps injury was highest in nurses.…”

“…HCP working in the emergency unit had a higher risk of sharps injury compared with ophthalmology, dental, psychiatry, anesthesia unit workers. The possible explanation was that critical and risky procedure executed in the emergency unit [16]. …”

“…Even though researchers argued decrement of sharps injury in Ethiopian hospitals [14], the incidence of sharps injury have been alarmingly increasing [15]. A cross-sectional study conducted in Bale [16] and North Shoa [17] zone, Ethiopia revealed that the prevalence of sharps injury was 19.1% and 31.5% respectively. The risk of sharps injury at the workplace was related to syringe recapping (56%), intramuscular or subcutaneous injection (22%), specimen collection or intravenous cannulation (20%), transfusion (35.5%), and inadequate waste disposal (74.8%) [1, 7, 18].…”