Using an intravenous catheter system to prevent needlestick injury

Abstract

The sharps awareness campaign and newly adopted needlestick prevention device may have contributed to the prevention of percutaneous injuries caused by catheters. Until the onset of the campaign, the reported annual incidence of needlestick injuries was six. This increased to a peak of 19 reported injuries in 2004, which could be attributed to improved reporting effected by the campaign.

Heterogeneity in application, design, and analysis characteristics was found for controlled before-after and interrupted time series studies included in Cochrane reviews

“…None of the included studies gave a definition of the study design. 43 3 (4%) refer to EPOC criteria without describing these 5 (7%) provide other information or criteria 10 (17%) provide more criteria, i.e. 2 intervention and 2 control sites + "contemporaneous data collection" and/or "same pre-and post-intervention periods" and/or "appropriate choice of control" Table 4.…”

“…Of the 16 selected ITS studies, two did not meet the Cochrane definition, as they did not include any data before the intervention [42,43] (Fig. 2).…”

Cost-Effectiveness of Needle and Catheter Over Needle With Active Protection Devices in the Hospital Setting

“…8 Italy has also had regulations for the same period, and Canada since 2008. [6][7] In Brazil, aiming to prevent, protect and promote the health workers' health, the Ministry of Labor and Employment issued Regulatory Standard (RS) 32, approved in Decree n. 485 on November 11 th 2005, which among other orientations instructed the health establishments to offer piercing and cutting material with safety devices, within an adaptation deadline of five months.…”

“…Different countries have discussed and regulated actions aimed at reducing those accidents. [6][7][8] The United States, for example, have specific laws to prevent needlestick accidents since 2000, when the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act was issued. 8 Italy has also had regulations for the same period, and Canada since 2008.…”

“…9 These devices can be classified in two types: active protection devices, addressed in this study, which depend on the user's activation and are the most common at institutions; and passive protection devices, which are automatically activated. 6 One important expected outcome when piercing and cutting materials with safety devices are used is the reduced incidence of accidents for the health team that is active in direct patient care as well as for the professionals responsible for the final disposal of the residues. 7 On the other hand, the publication of RS n. 32 caused modifications in the production system of the industrial chain, which directly influenced the increase in the value of new products the health institutions purchase.…”