Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:32:57.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chinks in the Armor: Activation Patterns of Hollow-Bore Safety-Engineered Sharp Devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Lisa Black ,
Ginger Parker  and
Janine Jagger
Lisa Black*
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Ginger Parker
Affiliation:
International Healthcare Worker Safety Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
Janine Jagger
Affiliation:
International Healthcare Worker Safety Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
*
1664 North Virginia Street, Mail Stop 0134, Reno, NV 89557 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A retrospective review of secondary injury data was used to evaluate the characteristics of percutaneous injuries from safety-engineered sharp devices. Injury rates and safety device activation rates differed by healthcare provider type. Approximately 22.8%–32% of injuries could have been prevented had an available safety feature been activated after use.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 33 , Issue 8 , August 2012 , pp. 842 - 844
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2012

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, Publication no. 106–430, 114, Stat. 1901 (November 6, 2000).Google Scholar
2.Jagger, J, Berguer, R, Phillips, EK, Parker, G, Gomaa, A. Increase in sharps injuries in surgical settings versus nonsurgical settings after passage of national needlestick legislation. AORN J 2011;93(3):322–330.Google Scholar
3.Jagger, J, Perry, J. Comparison of EPINet data for 1993 and 2001 shows marked decline in needlestick injury rates. Adv Expos Prev 2003;6(3):1, 26–27.Google Scholar
4.Stringer, B, Haines, T. Ongoing use of conventional devices and safely device activation rates in hospitals in Ontario, Canada. J Occup Environ Hyg Mar 2011;8(3): 154–160.Google Scholar
5.Mendelson, MH, Lin-Chen, BY, Solomon, R, Bailey, E, Kogan, G, Goldbold, J. Evaluation of a safety resheathable winged steel needle for prevention of percutaneous injuries associated with intravas-cular-access procedures among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:105–112.Google Scholar
6.Iinuma, Y, Igawa, J, Takeshita, M. Passive safety devices are more effective at reducing needlestick injuries [letter]. J Hosp Infect 2005;61:360–361.Google Scholar
7.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
8.International Healthcare Worker Safety Center. EPINet: Exposure Prevention Information Network, 2010. http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/epinet/about_epinet.cfm#What-is-EPINet. Accessed September 21, 2011.Google Scholar
9.Jagger, J, Hunt, EH, Brand-Elnaggar, J, Pearson, RD. Rates of needle-stick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. N Engl J Med 1988;319(5): 284–288.Google Scholar