Ongoing use of conventional devices and safety device activation rates in hospitals in ontario, canada

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 154-160

  Stringer, Bernadette ^a   Haines, Ted ^b  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Activation rate; Percutaneous injury; Safety engineered sharp devices

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CATHETER; DEVICE SAFETY; HUMAN; NEEDLESTICK INJURY; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIVATE HOSPITAL; PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT; STANDARD; SYRINGE; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; UTILIZATION REVIEW; WASTE DISPOSAL;

CATHETERS; EQUIPMENT SAFETY; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HOSPITALS, PRIVATE; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; HUMANS; MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL; NEEDLESTICK INJURIES; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; ONTARIO; PROTECTIVE DEVICES; SYRINGES;

EID: 79957967276     PISSN: 15459624     EISSN: 15459632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2011.555258     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Fry, D.E.: Occupational risks of blood exposure in the operating room. Am. Surg. 73:637–646 (2007).
2. Shapiro, C.N.: Occupational risk of infection with hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus. Surg. Clin. North. Am. 75:1047–1070 (1995).
3. Sepkowitz, K.A., and L. Eisenberg: Occupational deaths among healthcare workers. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11:1003–1008 (2005).
4. Gerberding, J.L.: Clinical practice: Occupational exposure to HIV in health care settings. N. Engl. J. Med. 348:826–833 (2003).
5. Watterson, L.: Sharp thinking. Nurs. Stand. 20:20–22 (2005).
6. “Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens. Final Rule.” Fed. Reg. 56(235):64004–64182, 1991.
7. Jagger, J., and J. Perry: Power in numbers—Reducing your risk of bloodborne exposures. Nursing. 29:51–52 (1999).
8. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO): Occupational Safety: Selected Cost and Benefit Implications of Needlestick Prevention Devices for Hospitals (GAO-01–60R). Washington, D.C.: GAO, November 17, 2000.
9. “Proceedings of the National Sharps Injury Prevention Meeting.” [Online] Available at http//www.cdc.gov/sharpssafety/pdf/proceedings.pdf (Accessed June 21, 2010).
10. Cardo, D.M., D.H. Culver, C.A. Ciesielski, et al.: A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health careworkers after percutaneous exposure. N. Engl. J. Med. 337:1485–1490 (1997).
11. Yazdanpanah, Y., G. De Carli, B. Migueres, et al.: Risk factors for hepatitis C virus transmission to health care workers after occupational exposure:AEuropean case-control study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 41:1423–1430 (2005).
12. Jagger, J., J. Perry, A. Gomaa, et al.: The impact of U.S. policies to protect healthcare workers from bloodborne pathogens: The critical role of safety-engineered devices. J. Infect. Public Health 1:62–71 (2008).
13. Sohn, S., J. Eagan, K.S. Sepkowitz, et al.: Effect of implementing safety-engineered devices on percutaneous injury epidemiology. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 25:536–542 (2004).
14. Adams, D., and T.S.J. Elliott: Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: A four-year prospective study. J. Hosp. Infect. 64:50–55 (2006).
15. Valls, V., S. Lozano, R. Yanez, et al.: Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers. Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 28:1352–1360 (2007).
16. Azar-Cavanagh, M., P. Burdt, and J. Green-McKenzie: Effect of the introduction of an engineered sharps injury prevention device on thepercutaneous injury rate in healthcare workers. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 28:165–170 (2007).
17. Lamontagne, F., D. Abiteboul, I. Lolom, et al.: Role of safetyengineered devices in preventing needlestick injuries in 32 French hospitals. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 28:18–23 (2007).
18. Whitby, M., M.-L. McLaws, and K. Slater: Needlestick injuries in a major teaching hospital: The worthwhile effect of hospital-wide replacement of conventional hollow-bore needles. Am. J. Infect. Control 36:180–186 (2008).
19. “Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000, Pub. No.106–430, 114 Stat. 1901, November 6, 2000.” Available at: [Online] http://frwebgate. access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname 106 cong bills&docid f:h51 78enr.txt.pdf (Accessed June 20, 2010).
20. Jagger, J., R. Berguer, E.K. Phillips, et al.: Increase in sharps injuries in surgical settings versus non-surgical settings after passage of national needlestick legislation. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 210:496–502 (2010).
21. “Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. Regulation 474/07.” [Online] Available at http://www.e laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2007/elaws src regs r07474 e.htm (Accessed June 20, 2010).
22. Hogan, A.: Gaps and successes of safety device market conversion. Mater. Manag. Health Care 14:33–34 (2005).
23. “Global Initiative for Healthcare Worker Safety and Occupational Exposure Prevention. University of Virginia. [Online] Available at http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/safetycenter/internetsafetycenter webpages/PolicyLegislation/EuropePolicyLegislationPage.cfm (Accessed June 19, 2010).
24. Mendelson, M.H., L. Chen, R. Solomon, et al.: “Evaluation of a Safety IV Catheter.” Presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, San Francisco, Calif., April 18–20, 1999. [Online] Available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/nash/4thabstracts.htm#11 (Accessed June 20, 2010).
25. Stringer B., G. Astrakianakis, T. Haines, et al.: Conventional and sharp safety devices in six hospitals in British Columbia, Canada. Am. J. Infect. Control. (In Press.)
26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Procedures/devices involved in percutaneous exposure in 46 healthcareworkers with documented occupationally acquired HIV, United States through June 1997. Adv. Expos. Prev. 3:33 (1998).
27. Tosini, W., C. Ciotti, F. Goyer, et al.: Needlestick injury rates according to different types of safety-engineered devices: Results of a French multicenter study. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 31:402–407 (2010).
28. Alvarado-Ramy, F., E.M. Beltrami, L.J. Short, et al.:Acomprehensive approach to percutaneous injury prevention during phlebotomy: Results of a multicenter study, 1993–1995. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 24:97–104 (2003). 160