Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T21:36:16.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sharps Injuries among Employees of Acute Care Hospitals in Massachusetts, 2002–2007

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Angela K. Laramie ,
Vivian C. Pun ,
Shona C. Fang ,
David Kriebel  and
Letitia Davis
Angela K. Laramie*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Occupational Health Surveillance Program, Boston, Massachusetts
Vivian C. Pun
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Occupational Health Surveillance Program, Boston, Massachusetts
Shona C. Fang
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
David Kriebel
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts
Letitia Davis
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Occupational Health Surveillance Program, Boston, Massachusetts
*
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 250 Washington Street, Sixth Floor, Boston, MA 02108 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Sharps with engineered sharps injury protections (SESIPs) have been found to reduce risk of sharps injuries (Sis). We examined trends in SI rates among employees of acute care hospitals in Massachusetts, including the impact of SESIPs on SI trends during 2002-2007.

Design.

Prospective surveillance.

Setting.

Seventy-six acute care hospitals licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

Participants.

Employees of acute care hospitals who reported Sis to their employers.

Methods.

Data on Sis in acute care hospitals collected by the Massachusetts Sharps Injury Surveillance System were used to examine trends in SI rates over time by occupation, hospital size, and device. Negative binomial regression was used to assess trends.

Results.

During 2002-2007, 16,158 Sis among employees of 76 acute care hospitals were reported to the surveillance system. The annual SI rate decreased by 22%, with an annual decline of 4.7% (P < .001). Rates declined significantly among nurses (—7.2% per year; P < .001) but not among physicians (—0.9% per year; P = .553). SI rates associated with winged steel needles and hypodermic needles and syringes also declined significantly as the proportion of injuries involving devices with sharps injury prevention features increased during the same time period.

Conclusion.

SI rates involving devices for which SESIPs are widely available and appear to be increasingly used have declined. The continued use of devices lacking SI protections for which SESIPs are available needs to be addressed. The extent to which injuries involving SESIPs are due to flaws in design or lack of experience and training must be examined.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , June 2011 , pp. 538 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Panlilio, AL, Orelien, JG, Srivastava, PU, Jagger, J, Cohn, RD, Cardo, DM. Estimate of the annual number of percutaneous injuries among hosptial-based healthcare workers in the United States, 1997-1998. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25(7):556–562.Google Scholar
2.US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens; needlestick and other sharps injuries; final rule. Fed Regist 2001;66:5317–5325.Google Scholar
3.Werner, BG, Grady, GF. Accidental hepatitis-B-surface-antigen-positive inoculations: use of e antigen to estimate infectivity. Ann Intern Med 1982;97(3):367–369.Google Scholar
4.Alter, MJ. The epidemiology of acute and chronic hepatitis C. Clin Liver Dis 1997;1(3):559–568, vi-vii.Google Scholar
5.Lanphear, BP, Linnemann, CC Jr, Cannon, CG, DeRonde, MM, Pendy, L, Kerley, LM. Hepatitis C virus infection in healthcare workers: risk of exposure and infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15(12):745–750.Google Scholar
6.Puro, V, Petrosillo, N, Ippolito, G; and the Italian Study Group on Occupational Risk of HIV and Other Bloodborne Infections. Risk of hepatitis C seroconversion after occupational exposure in health care workers. Am J Infect Control 1995;23(5):273–277.Google Scholar
7.Mitsui, T, Iwano, K, Masuko, K, et al.Hepatitis C virus infection in medical personnel after needlestick accident. Hepatology 1992;16(5):1109–1114.Google Scholar
8.Bell, DM. Occupational risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection in healthcare workers: an overview. Am J Med 1997;102(suppl 5B):9–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Updated US Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HBV, HCV, and HIV and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001;50:1–52.Google Scholar
10.O'Malley, EM, Scott, DS, Gayle, J, et al.Costs of management of occupational exposures to blood and body fluids. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(7):774–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Rogues, AM, Verdun-Esquer, C, Buisson-Valles, I, et al.Impact of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries related to phlebotomy procedures in health care workers. Am J Infect Control 2004;32(8):441–444.Google Scholar
12.Cavanagh, MA, Burdt, P, Green-McKenzie, J. Effect of the introduction of an engineered sharps injury prevention device on the percutaneous injury rate in healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(2):165–170.Google Scholar
13.US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Workbook for Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating a Sharps Injury Prevention Program, 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/sharpssafety/pdf/sharpsworkbook_2008.Pdf. Accessed July 14, 2008.Google Scholar
14.Massachusetts Division of Employment and Training. Economic data: Employment and Wages (ES-202). http://lmi2.detma.org/Lmi/LMI_es_a.asp#IND_LOCATION. Accessed July 14, 2008.Google Scholar
15.Commonwealth of Massachusetts. An Act Relative to Needlestick Injury Prevention (M.G.L. Ch. 111 §53D). http://www.mass.gov/Iegis/laws/seslaw00/sl000252.htm. Accessed July 14, 2008.Google Scholar
16.Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH). Hospital Licensure Reguhtions (105 CMR 130.1001-1009). http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrtext/105CMR130.Pdf. Accessed November 23, 2010.Google Scholar
17.US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Surveillance System for Healthcare Workers, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-146/appendix/ap-a/ap-a-14.html. Accessed March 3, 2010.Google Scholar
18.MDPH Occupational Health Surveillance Program. Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers in Massachusetts, 2004: Findings from the Massachusetts Sharps Injury Surveillance System, 2007. http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/occupational_health/injuries_hospital_2004.Pdf. Accessed July 14, 2008.Google Scholar
19.Kim, H, Kriebel, D. Regression models for public health surveillance data: a simulation study. Occup Environ Med 2009;66:733–739.Google Scholar
20.Van Der Bij, AK, Geskus, RB, Fennema, HAS, et al.No evidence for a sustained increase in sexually transmitted diseases among heterosexuals in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: a 12-year trend analysis. Sex Transm Dis 2007;34(7):461–467.Google Scholar
21.Shankar, VN, Ulfarsson, GF, Pendyala, RM, Nebergall, MB. Modeling crashes involving pedestrians and motorized traffic. SafSci 2003;41(7):627–640.Google Scholar
22.Tosini, W, Ciotti, C, Goyer, F, et al.Needlestick injury rates according to different types of safety-engineered devices: results of a French multicenter study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(4):402–407.Google Scholar
23.National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Use of Blunt-Tip Suture Needles to Decrease Percutaneous Injuries to Surgical Personnel: Safety and Health Information Bulletin, 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2008-101/pdfs/2008-101.Pdf. Accessed July 14, 2008.Google Scholar
24.Tandberg, D, Stewart, KK, Doezma, D. Under-reporting of contaminated needlestick injuries in emergency health care workers. Ann EmergMed 1991;20(1):66–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Nagao, M, linuma, Y, Igawa, J, et al.Accidental exposures to blood and body fluid in the operation room and the issue of underreporting. Am J Infect Control 2009;34(7):541–544.Google Scholar
26.Kotelchuck, D, Murphy, D, Younai, F. Impact of underreporting on the management of occupational bloodborne exposures in a dental teaching environment. J Dent Educ 2004;68(6):614–622.Google Scholar
27.Au, E, Gossage, JA, Bailey, SR. The reporting of needlestick injuries sustained in theatre by surgeons: are we under-reporting? J Hosp Infect 2008;70(1):66–70.Google Scholar
28.Sohn, M, Eagan, J, Sepkowitz, KA. Safety-engineered device implementation: does it introduce bias in percutaneous injury reporting? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25(7):543–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Adams, D, Elliott, TSJ. Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study. J Hosp Infect 2006;64(1):50–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Valis, V, Lozano, S, Yanez, R, et al.Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(12):1352–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Whitby, M, McLaws, ML, Salter, K. Needlestick injuries in a major teaching hospital: the worthwhile effect of hospital-wide replacement of conventional hollow-bore needles. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(3):180–186.Google Scholar
32.Zafar, A, Habib, F, Hadwani, R, et al.Impact of infection control activities on the rate of needle stick injuries at a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan over a period of six years: an observational study. BMC Infect Dis 2009;9:78.Google Scholar
33.Tuma, S, Sepkowitz, KA. Efficacy of safety-engineered device implementation in the prevention of percutaneous injuries: a review of published studies. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42(8):1159–1170.Google Scholar
34.Avarado-Ramy, F, Beltrami, EM, Short, LJ, et al.A comprehensive approach to percutaneous injury prevention during phlebotomy: results of a multicenter study, 1993-1995. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24(2):97–104.Google Scholar
35.Jagger, J, Perry, J. Comparison of EPINet data for 1993 and 2001 shows marked decline in needlestick injury rates. Adv Exposure Prev 2003;6(3):25–27.Google Scholar
36.Apisarnthanarak, A, Babcock, HM, Fraser, VJ. The effect of non-device interventions to reduce needlestick injuries among health care workers in a Thai tertiary care center. AJIC 2008;36(1):74–75.Google Scholar
37.Saver, C. Blunting sharps injuries in the OR continues to be a work in progress. OR Manager 2010;26(1). http://www .healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/safetycenter/internetsafety centerwebpages/News/BluntingSharpsInjuries_ORMgr_Jan2010 .Pdf. Accessed November 23, 2010.Google Scholar
38.Catanzarite, V, Byrd, K, McNamara, M, Bombard, A. Preventing needlestick injuries in obstetrics and gynecology: how can we improve the use of blunt tip needles in practice? Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(6):1399–1403.Google Scholar
39.Sinclair, RC, Maxfield, A, Marks, EL, Thompson, DR, Gershon, RRM. Prevalence of safer needle devices and factors associated with their adoption: results of a national hospital survey. Public Health Rep 2002;117(4):340–349.Google Scholar
40.Galligan, C, Chalupka, S, Laramie, A, Davis, L. Procedure trays: a call to action for sharps safety. Nursing 2009;39(1):13–15.Google Scholar