Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:28:07.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Role of Safety-Engineered Devices in Preventing Needlestick Injuries in 32 French Hospitals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

F. Lamontagne ,
D. Abiteboul ,
I. Lolom ,
G. Pellissier ,
A. Tarantola ,
J. M. Descamps  and
E. Bouvet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives.

To evaluate safety-engineered devices (SEDs) with respect to their effectiveness in preventing needlestick injuries (NSIs) in healthcare settings and their importance among other preventive measures.

Design.

Multicenter prospective survey with a 1-year follow-up period during which all incident NSIs and their circumstances were reported. Data were prospectively collected during a 12-month period from April 1999 through March 2000. The procedures for which the risk of NSI was high were also reported 1 week per quarter to estimate procedure-specific NSI rates. Device types were documented. Because SEDs were not in use when a similar survey was conducted in 1990, their impact was also evaluated by comparing findings from the recent and previous surveys.

Setting.

A total of 102 medical units from 32 hospitals in France.

Participants.

A total of 1,506 nurses in medical or intensive care units.

Results.

A total of 110 NSIs occurring during at-risk procedures performed by nurses were documented. According to data from the 2000 survey, use of SEDs during phlebotomy procedures was associated with a 74% lower risk (P < .01 ). The mean NSI rate for all relevant nursing procedures was estimated to be 4.72 cases per 100,000 procedures, for a 75% decrease since 1990 (P < .01); however, the decrease in NSI rates varied considerably according to procedure type. Between 1990 and 2000, decreases in the NSI rates for each procedure were strongly correlated with increases in the frequency of SED use (r = 0.88; P < .02).

Conclusion.

In this French hospital network, the use of SEDs was associated with a significantly lower NSI rate and was probably the most important preventive factor.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 18 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007

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. Abiteboul, D, Antona, D, Fourrier, A, et al. Exposition accidentelle au sang du personnel soignant: résultats d'un an de surveillance. Pathol Biol 1992;40:983–989.Google Scholar
2. Circulaire DGS/DH n°98/249 du 20/4/1998 relative à la prévention de la transmission d'agents infectieux véhiculés par le sang ou les liquides biologiques lors des soins dans les établissements de santé. Paris: Ministère de l'emploi et de la solidarité;1998. Available at: http://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/pointsur/contamination/98_249t.htm.Google Scholar
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1987;36(suppl 2):1S–18S.Google Scholar
4. Garner, JS. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:53–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Doebbeling, BN. Lessons regarding percutaneous injuries among healthcare providers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:82–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Lot, F, Migueres, B, Yasdanpanah, Y, et al. Séroconversions professionnelles par le VIH et le VHC en France chez le personnel de santé: le point au 30/6/01. Bull Epidemiol Hebdomadaire 2002;12:49–51. Available at: http://www.invs.sante.fr/BEH/2002/51/.Google Scholar
7. Groupe d'Etude sur le Risque d'Exposition des Soignants aux agents infectieux. Guide des Matériels de Sécurité. Paris: Ministère de la Santé; 2004.Google Scholar
8. . Abiteboul, D, Lamontagne, F, Lolom, I, Tarantola, A, Descamps, JM, Bouvet, E. Incidence des accidents exposant au sang chez le personnel infirmier en France métropolitaine, 1999-2000: résultats d'une enquête mul-ticentrique dans 32 hôpitaux. BEH 2002;51:256–258.Google Scholar
9. Beekmann, SE, Vaughn, TE, McCoy, KD, et al. Hospital bloodborne pathogens programs: program characteristics and blood and body fluid exposure rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:73–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Gershon, RR, Pearse, L, Grimes, M, Flanagan, PA, Vlahov, D. The impact of multifocused interventions on sharps injury rates at an acute-care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:806–811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Dale, JC, Pruett, SK, Maker, MD. Accidental needlesticks in the phlebotomy service of the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Mayo Clin Proc 1998;73:611–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Beekmann, SE, Vlahov, D, Koziol, DE, McShalley, ED, Schmitt, JM, Henderson, DK. Temporal association between implementation of universal precautions and a sustained, progressive decrease in percutaneous exposures to blood. Clin Infect Dis 1994;18:562–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Tarantola, A, Golliot, F, Astagneau, P. Occupational blood and body fluids exposures in health care workers: four-year surveillance from the Northern France Network. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:357–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Alvarado-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;24:97–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. 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 ScholarPubMed
16. Ippolito, G, De Carli, G, Puro, V, et al. Device-specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian health care workers. JAMA 1994;272:607–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Patel, N, Tignor, GH. Device-specific sharps injury and usage rates: an analysis by hospital department. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:77–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Billiet, LS, Parker, CR, Tanley, PC, Wallas, CH. Needlestick injury rate reduction during phlebotomy: a comparative study of two safety-engineered devices. Lab Med 1991;22:122–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Jagger, J. Reducing occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens: where do we stand a decade later? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:573–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Mendelson, MH, Lin Chen, BY, Solomon, R, Bailey, E, Kogan, G, Golbold, J. Evaluation of a safety resheathable winged steel needle for prevention of percutaneous injuries associated with intravascular access procedures among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:105–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Roudot-Thoraval, F, Montagne, O, Schaeffer, A, Dubreuil-Lemaire, ML, Hachard, D, Durand-Zaleski, I. Costs and benefits of measures to prevent needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:614–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Tarantola, A, Rachline, A, Abiteboul, D. Infection risks following accidental exposure to blood or body fluids in health care workers: a review of pathogens transmitted in published cases. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:367–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed