Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:13:06.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Randomized Prospective Study of the Impact of Three Needleless Intravenous Systems on Needlestick Injury Rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Paul B. L'Ecuyer ,
Elizabeth Owens Schwab ,
Elizabeth Iademarco ,
Norma Barr ,
Elizabeth A. Aton  and
Victoria J. Fraser
Paul B. L'Ecuyer
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine Barnes Hospital, BJC Health System, St. Louis, Missouri
Elizabeth Owens Schwab
Affiliation:
Departments of Infection Control Barnes Hospital, BJC Health System, St. Louis, Missouri
Elizabeth Iademarco
Affiliation:
Nursing Barnes Hospital, BJC Health System, St. Louis, Missouri
Norma Barr
Affiliation:
Nursing Barnes Hospital, BJC Health System, St. Louis, Missouri
Elizabeth A. Aton
Affiliation:
Environmental Health and Safety Barnes Hospital, BJC Health System, St. Louis, Missouri
Victoria J. Fraser*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine Barnes Hospital, BJC Health System, St. Louis, Missouri
*
Campus Box 8051, 660 South Euclid Ave, Division of Infectious Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110-1093
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the impact of three needleless intravenous systems on needlestick injury rates.

Design:

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting:

1,000-bed tertiary-care Midwestern hospital.

Participants:

Nursing personnel from general medical, general surgical, and intensive-care units.

Interventions:

From June 1992 through March 1994, a metal blunt cannula (MBC), two-way valve (2-way), and plastic blunt cannula (PBC) were introduced into three study areas, and needlestick injury rates were compared to three control areas using traditional needled devices.

Results:

24 and 29 needlestick injuries were reported in study and control areas. Intravenous-therapy-related injuries comprised 45.8% and 57.1% of injuries in each area. Thirty-seven percent and 20.7% of study and control area needlestick injuries were considered to pose a high risk of bloodborne infection. The 2-way group had similar rates of total and intravenous-related needlestick injuries compared to control groups. The PBC group had lower rates of total and intravenous-related needlestick injuries per 1,000 patient-days (rate ratios [RR], 0.32 and 0.24; 95°% confidence intervals [CI95], 0.12-0.81 and 0.09-0.61; P=.02 and P=.003, respectively) and per 1,000 productive hours worked (RR, 0.11 and 0.08; CI95, 0.01-0.92 and 0.010.69; P=.03 and P=.005, respectively) compared to controls.

Conclusions:

Needlestick injuries continued in study areas despite the introduction of needleless devices, and risks of bloodborne pathogen transmission were similar to control areas. The PBC device group noted lower rates of needlestick injuries compared to controls, but there were problems with product acceptance, correct product use, and continued traditional device use in study areas. Low needlestick injury rates make interpretations difficult. Further studies of safety devices are needed and should attempt greater control of worker behavior to aid interpretation.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 17 , Issue 12 , December 1996 , pp. 803 - 808
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1996

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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Jagger, J, Hunt, EH, Pearson, RD. Sharp object injuries in the hospital: causes and strategies for prevention. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:227–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. McCormick, RD, Meisch, MG, Ircink, FG, Maki, DG. Epidemiology of hospital sharps injuries: a 14-year prospective study in the pre-AIDS and AIDS eras. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):301S–307S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Gerberding, JL. Procedure-specific infection control for preventing intraoperative blood exposures. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:364–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Jagger, J, Pearson, RD. Universal Precautions: still missing the point on needlesticks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:211–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. McDonald, LL, Bryan, JL, Bartley, J, Earl, A, Kelly, J, Pitt, H. APIC position paper: prevention of device-mediated bloodborne infections to healthcare workers. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:76–78.Google Scholar
7. Wugofski, L. Needlestick prevention devices: a pointed discussion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:295–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Gerberding, JL. Needlestick prevention: new paradigms for research. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:257–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Jagger, J, Hunt, EH, Pearson, RD. Estimated cost of needlestick injuries for six major needled devices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:584–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Gartner, K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:75–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Wolfrum, J. A follow-up evaluation to a needle-free IV system. Nursing Management 1994;25:33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Younger, B, Hunt, E, Robinson, C, McLemore, C. Impact of a shielded safety syringe on needlestick injuries among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;13:349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Tierney, M, Spenser, M, Carrol, J, et al. Efficacy of needlestick reduction devices at a large teaching hospital. Fourth Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; March 1994; New Orleans LA. Abstract M6.Google Scholar
14. Palandri, M, Sasse, S, Rupp, M. Impact of a needleless intravenous system on needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Fifth Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; April 1995; San Diego, CA. Presentation 48.Google Scholar
15. Lawrence, L, Felknor, S, Johnson, P, Frankowski, R, Davidson, A, Delclos, G. The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous system in prevention of percutaneous injury in two hospitals. Fifth Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; April 1995; San Diego, CA. Abstract 49.Google Scholar
16. Beason, R, Bourguignon, J, Fowler, D, Gardner, C. Evaluation of a needle-free intravenous access system. Journal of Intravenous Nursing 1992;15:11–16.Google Scholar
17. Younger, B. Impact of a needleless IV system on needlestick injuries and primary bloodstream infection rates. Fourth Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; March 1994; New Orleans, LA. Abstract M7.Google Scholar
18. Haiduven, DJ, DeMaio, TM, Stevens, DA. A five-year study of needlestick injuries: significant reduction associated with communication, education, and convenient placement of sharps containers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:265–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Armstrong, S. The cost of needlestick injuries: the impact of safer medical devices. Nursing Economics 1991;9:426.Google Scholar
20. Berry, A. Are some types of needles more likely to transmit HIV to healthcare workers? Am J Infect Control 1993;21:216–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Manian, FA, Meyer, L, Jenne, J. Puncture injuries due to needles removed from intravenous lines: should the source patient routinely be tested for bloodborne pathogens? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:325–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Laufer, FN, Chiarello, LA. Application of cost-effectiveness methodology to the consideration of needlestick-prevention technology. Am J Infect Control 1994;22:75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Short, L, Chamberland, M, Srivastava, P, et al. Impact of safety devices to reduce percutaneous injuries during phlebotomy. Fifth Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; April 1995; San Diego, CA. Abstract 50.Google Scholar
24. Chamberland, ME, Ciesielski, CA, Howard, RJ, Fry, DE, Bell, DM. Occupational risk of infection with human immunodeficiency virus. Surg Clin North Am 1995;75:1057–1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed