Chinks in the armor: Activation patterns of hollow-bore safety-engineered sharp devices

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 842-844

  Black, Lisa ^a   Parker, Ginger ^b   Jagger, Janine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLOODBORNE BACTERIUM; DEVICE INFECTION; DEVICE SAFETY; DEVICES; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INFECTION CONTROL; INJURY; PERCUTANEOUS INJURY; PREVENTION; RISK REDUCTION; SAFETY ENGINEERED SHARP DEVICE;

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; NEEDLES; NEEDLESTICK INJURIES; OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES; PROTECTIVE DEVICES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SAFETY;

EID: 84863740803     PISSN: 0899823X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/666630     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000, Publication no.106-430, 114, Stat. 1901 (November 6, 2000).
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.
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.
4. Stringer B, Haines T. Ongoing use of conventional devices and safety device activation rates in hospitals in Ontario, Canada. J Occup Environ HygMar 2011;8(3):154-160.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.