Device-Specific Risk of Needlestick Injury in Italian Health Care Workers

Ippolito, Giuseppe; Carli, Gabriella De; Puro, Vincenzo; Petrosillo, Nicola; Arici, Claudio; Bertucci, Roberto; Bianciardi, Luca; Bonazzi, L; Cestrone, Adriano; Daglio, Marinella; M, Desperati; Francesconi, Mauro; Migliori, Massimo; Monti, Anna; Perna, Maria Carmela; Pietrobon, Francesco; Jagger, Janine

doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520080049042

Cited by 55 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many authors have stated that sharp and needlestick injuries in nurses are caused by injection needles in 34AE5-59AE5% of cases (English 1992, Ippolito et al 1994, Eg ri & Pehlivan 2000, Ayrancı & Kosgerog lu 2004, and we similarly found a rate of 55AE9% for injection needles. The percentage of nurses stating that the item causing the most recent injury was contaminated with the body fluids of the patient was 22AE6%; 22AE2% of these nurses reported that the patient had a contagious disease, while 18AE5% said that the patient may have had a contagious disease or that the status was unknown.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Long working hours increase the risk of sharp and needlestick injury in nurses: the need for new policy implication

İlhan¹,

Durukan²,

Aras³

et al. 2006

Journal of Advanced Nursing

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Long working hours increase the risk of sharp and needlestick injury in nurses: the need for new policy implication

İlhan¹,

Durukan²,

Aras³

et al. 2006

Journal of Advanced Nursing

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hepatitis B infection was a common infectious occupational disease among healthcare workers (HCWs), thus a vaccination campaign was conducted in 1983 to sensitize high-risk groups, such as HCWs, for whom vaccination was strongly suggested (2). However, despite the long-standing existence of recommendations for such high-risk groups (3), hepatitis B vaccinations only reached a small percentage of these populations, who remained susceptible to the virus (4). Indeed, the incidence of hepatitis B in HCWs continued to be higher than in the general population, reflecting poor vaccine coverage (5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Persistence of Seroprotection by Hepatitis B Vaccination in Healthcare Workers of Southern Italy

Grosso¹,

Mistretta²,

Marventano³

et al. 2012

Hepat Mon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe impact of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination campaigns on HBV epidemiology needs to be evaluated, in order to assess the long-term immunity offered by vaccines against HBV.ObjectivesTo evaluate the current status of anti-HBV vaccine coverage among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Southern Italy, and to determine the long-term persistence of antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigens (anti-HBs) in such a cohort of subjects.Patients and MethodsA longitudinal, retrospective seroepidemiological survey was conducted among 451 HCWs, who were working at or visiting, the Occupational Health Department of a city hospital, in Catania, Italy, between January 1976 and December 2010.ResultsAt the 30-year follow-up (mean follow-up 10.15 ± 5.96 years, range 0.74-30), 261 HCWs had detectable anti-HBs titers indicating a persistence of seroprotection of 89.4% (out of 292 anti-HBs positive results, three months after vaccination). An inadequate vaccination schedule was the strongest predictor of antibody loss during follow-up (OR = 8.37 95% CI: 5.41-12.95, P < 0.001). A Kaplan-Maier survival curve revealed that the persistence of anti-HBs 30 years after vaccination, was 92.2% for high responders, while it was only 27.3% for low responders (P = 0.001).ConclusionsA good level of seroprotection persisted in 57.9% of the subjects after 30 years. Factors related to this immunization status confirmed the importance of vaccinating HCWs early in their careers and ensuring an adequate vaccination schedule. However, with particular reference to the low rate of hepatitis B vaccine coverage among HCWs in Southern Italy, the implementation of a new educational intervention as part of an active vaccination program is needed.

show abstract

“…The reviewers included seven studies in common with our review [56, 57, 59, 63, 65, 67, 70]. They also included four studies that we excluded for different reasons: the lack of an actual implementation of a safety device [38], not reporting data separately for separate procedures [51], being an abstract and not a published full-text [42], and not reporting comparative data for the conventional device [30]. Thus, compared with the 2006 review, our systematic review included 15 additional studies [6, 26, 53–55, 58, 60–62, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ballout

Diab

Harb

et al. 2016

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe acquisition of needle-stick injuries (NSI) in a healthcare setting poses an occupational hazard of transmitting blood-borne pathogens from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs). The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence about the efficacy and safety of using safety-engineered intravenous devices and safety-engineered phlebotomy devices by HCWs.MethodsWe included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing safety-engineered devices to conventional/standard devices that lack safety features for delivering intravenous injections and/or for blood-withdrawal procedures (phlebotomy). The outcomes of interest included NSI rates, and blood-borne infections rates among HCWs and patients. We conducted an extensive literature search strategy using the OVID interface in October 2013. We followed the standard methods for study selection and data abstraction. When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We used the GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence by outcome.ResultsWe identified twenty-two eligible studies: Twelve assessed safety-engineered devices for intravenous procedures, five for phlebotomy procedures, and five for both. Twenty-one of those studies were observational while one was a randomized trial. All studies assessed the reduction in NSIs among HCWs. For safety-engineered intravenous devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.28 [0.13, 0.59] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.34 [0.08,1.49] (low quality evidence). For safety-engineered phlebotomy devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.57 [0.38, 0.84] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.53 [0.43,0.65] (moderate quality evidence). We identified no studies assessing the outcome of blood-borne infections among healthcare workers or patients.ConclusionThere is moderate-quality evidence that the use of safety-engineered devices in intravenous injections and infusions, and phlebotomy (blood-drawing) procedures reduces NSI rates of HCWs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1705-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Device-Specific Risk of Needlestick Injury in Italian Health Care Workers

Cited by 55 publications

References 8 publications

Long working hours increase the risk of sharp and needlestick injury in nurses: the need for new policy implication

Long working hours increase the risk of sharp and needlestick injury in nurses: the need for new policy implication

Long-Term Persistence of Seroprotection by Hepatitis B Vaccination in Healthcare Workers of Southern Italy

Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About