Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:40:28.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Sharps Safety Devices Meeting OSHA's Intent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Gina Pugliese ,
Teresa P. Germanson ,
Judene Bartley ,
Judith Luca ,
Lois Lamerato ,
Jack Cox  and
Janine Jagger
Gina Pugliese*
Affiliation:
Premier Safety Institute, Premier Inc, Oak Brook, Illinois
Teresa P. Germanson
Affiliation:
IdeaMetrics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
Judene Bartley
Affiliation:
Premier Safety Institute, Premier Inc, Oak Brook, Illinois
Judith Luca
Affiliation:
Premier Safety Institute, Premier Inc, Oak Brook, Illinois
Lois Lamerato
Affiliation:
Premier Safety Institute, Premier Inc, Oak Brook, Illinois
Jack Cox
Affiliation:
Premier Safety Institute, Premier Inc, Oak Brook, Illinois
Janine Jagger
Affiliation:
International Healthcare Worker Safety Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
*
Premier Safety Institute, 700 Commerce Dr, Oak Brook, IL 60523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) revised the Bloodborne Pathogen Standard and, on July 17, 2001, began enforcing the use of appropriate and effective sharps devices with engineered sharps-injury protection. OSHA requires employers to maintain a sharps-injury log that records, among other items, the type and brand of contaminated sharps device involved in each injury. Federal OSHA does not require needlestick injury rates to be calculated by brand or type of device. A sufficient sample size to show a valid comparison of safety devices, based on injury rates, is rarely feasible in a single facility outside of a formal research trial. Thus, calculations of injury rates should not be used by employers for product evaluations to compare the effectiveness of safety devices. This article provides examples of sample-size requirements for statistically valid comparisons, ranging from 100,000 to 4.5 million of each device, depending on study design, and expected reductions in needlestick injury rates.

Type
Special Report
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 22 , Issue 7 , July 2001 , pp. 456 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2001

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.Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-430, 114 Stat. 1901 (Nov. 6, 2000).Google Scholar
2.Occupational Safety Health and Administration. Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens. Final Rule (29 CFR 1910.1030) Federal Register. January 18, 2001;66:5317–5324.Google Scholar
3.Jagger, J, Hunt, EH, Brand-Elnaggar, J, Pearson, RD. Rates of needlestick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. N Engl J Med 1988;319:284–288.Google Scholar
4.Ippolito, G, De Carli, G, Puro, V, Petrosillo, N, Arid, C, Bertucci, R, et al.Device-specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian health care workers. JAMA 1994;272:607–610.Google Scholar
5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during phlebotomy procedures—Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. MMWR 1997;46:21–25.Google Scholar
6.Jagger, J, Bentley, MB. Injuries from vascular access devices: high risk and preventable. Collaborative EPINet Surveillance Group. J Intraven Nurs 1997;20(6 Suppl):S33–S39.Google Scholar
7.Mendelson, MH, Chen, LBY, Finkelstein, LE, Bailey, E, Kogan, G. Evaluation of a safety IV catheter (Insyte Autoguard, Becton-Dickinson) using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Surveillance System for Hospital Healthcare Workers database. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:111. Abstract.Google Scholar
8.Chen, LBY, Bailey, E, Kogan, G, Finkelstein, LE, Mendelson, MH. Prevention of needlestick injuries in healthcare workers: 27 month experience with a resheathable ‘safety’ winged steel needle using CDC NASH Database. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:108. Abstract.Google Scholar
9.Fisher, RA. The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver and Boyd; 1935.Google Scholar