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

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Ballout, Rami A ^a   Diab, Batoul ^b   Harb, Alain C ^a   Tarabay, Rami ^b   Khamassi, Selma ^c   Akl, Elie A ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^b LEBANESE UNIVERSITY   (Lebanon)

^c WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Blood borne pathogens; Healthcare setting; Healthcare workers; Intravenous; Meta analysis; Needle stick injuries; Phlebotomy; Safety engineered devices; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

BLOODBORNE BACTERIUM; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INTRAMUSCULAR DRUG ADMINISTRATION; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; META ANALYSIS; NEEDLESTICK INJURIES; PHLEBOTOMY; PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAFETY; SUBCUTANEOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

BLOOD-BORNE PATHOGENS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, INTRAMUSCULAR; INJECTIONS, INTRAVENOUS; INJECTIONS, SUBCUTANEOUS; NEEDLESTICK INJURIES; PHLEBOTOMY; PROTECTIVE DEVICES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SAFETY;

EID: 84984706709     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1705-y     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Jeffress CN. Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens; Needlestick and Other Sharps Injuries; Final Rule. In: Administration OSH, ed. United States Department of Labor Website; 2001. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show-document?p-table=FEDERAL-REGISTER&p-id=16265.
2. Vaughan ARaP. The World Health Report 2002. In: Campanini B, ed. Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life: World Health Organization; 2002.
3. Panlilio AL, Orelien JG, Srivastava PU, et al. Estimate of the annual number of percutaneous injuries among hospital-based healthcare workers in the United States, 1997-1998. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(7):556-62.
4. McCormick RD, Maki DG. Epidemiology of needle-stick injuries in hospital personnel. Am J Med. 1981;70(4):928-32.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during phlebotomy procedures - Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46(2):21-5.
6. Mendelson M, Solomon R, Shekletski E, et al. Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during phlebotomy procedures - Minneapolis-St Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. J Am Med Assoc. 1997;277(6):449-50.
7. McCormick RD, Meisch MG, Ircink FG, et al. Epidemiology of hospital sharps injuries: a 14-year prospective study in the pre-AIDS and AIDS eras. Am J Med. 1991;91(3B):301S-7.
8. Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, et al. A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(21):1485-90.
9. Jagger JPaJ. Reducing sharps injury risk in intensive care settings ADVANCES IN EXPOSURE PREVENTION: International Healthcare Worker Safety Center, University of Virginia; 2005.
10. Vincent A. 12 self-care steps: your profession is a demanding one. Taking care of yourself is necessary. Massage Ther J. 2010;49(1):67-79.
11. Alarcon W. Preventing Needlesticks in Surgical Personnel NIOSH Science Blog: Safer Healthier Workers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008.
12. Bloodborne Pathogens Exposure Information Sheet. Occupational Health Services 2013. https://hr.umich.edu/benefits-wellness/health/mhealthy/occupational-health/occupational-health-services/ohs-services/evaluation-exposures-bloodborne-pathogens/bloodborne-pathogens-exposure-information-sheet. Accessed 15 Aug 2014.
13. Pruss-Ustun A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(6):482-90.
14. How to Prevent Needlestick Injuries: Answers to some important questions. In: Labor USDo, ed.: Occupational Safety & Health Administration; 1993. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3161.pdf.
15. Beekmann SE, Henderson DK. Protection of healthcare workers from bloodborne pathogens. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2005;18(4):331-6.
16. Gartner K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. J Healthc Mater Manage. 1993;11(8):44-6. 48-9.
17. Heinrich J. Occupational Safety: Selected Cost and Benefit Implications of Needlestick Prevention Devices for Hospitals. In: Stark P, editor. United States General Accounting Office. 2000.
18. Garvin M. IV Insertion Safety Devices: Evaluating Both Safety and Clinical Performance. 2001. http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/articles/2001/07/iv-insertion-safety-devices-evaluating-both-safet.aspx. Accessed December 2014.
19. Harb AC, Tarabay R, Diab B, et al. Safety engineered injection devices for intramuscular, subcutaneous and intradermal injections in healthcare delivery settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nurs. 2015;14:71.
20. Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, et al. A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Needlestick Surveillance Group. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(21):1485-90.
21. Jagger J, Hunt EH, Brand-Elnaggar J, et al. Rates of needle-stick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(5):284-8.
22. Elie Akl RB, Batoul D, Alain H, Selma K, Rami T. Sharp injury prevention syringes. 10 March 2014 ed. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews: University of York- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2014.
23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
24. 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):402-7.
25. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence - study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407-15.
26. Adams D, Elliott TS. Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study. J Hosp Infect. 2006;64(1):50-5.
27. Guyatt G OA, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schünemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Elsevier; 2011.
28. Beason R, Bourguignon J, Fowler D, et al. Evaluation of a needle-free intravenous access system. J Intraven Nurs. 1992;15(1):11-6.
29. Derevnuk A, Finkelstein-Blond L, Wallach F. Reduction of percutaneous injuries in healthcare workers: Use of a retractable winged steel needle. Am J Infect Control. 2013;1:S80-1.
30. Ippolito G, De Carli G, Puro V, et al. Device-specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian health care workers. JAMA. 1994;272(8):607-10.
31. Kempen PM. Assessing blunt cannulae as replacements for hypodermic needles during intravenous therapy: safety and utility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18(3):169-74.
32. Shimatani M, Matsui Y, Yano K. Comparison of the needlstick injuries due to active and passive design safety intravenous catheters. American Journal of Infection Control Conference: 38th Annual Educational Conference and International Meeting of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, APIC 2011;39(5).
33. Watters J, MacCallum R, Maurice S, et al. Safelon - a new device to reduce needle-stick injuries during intravenous cannulation. Anaesthesia. 1995;50(6):529-31.
34. Needlestick-prevention devices. Focus on blood collection devices and catheters. Health Devices. 1998;27(6):184-232. Pubmed PMID: 9669183
35. Sossai D, Puro V, Chiappatoli L, et al. Using an intravenous catheter system to prevent needlestick injury. Nurs Stand. 2010;24(29):42-6.
36. Dubois MC. Protection against the transmission of hematogenous diseases in a hospital milieu. A new device for venous puncture. [French] Protection contre la transmission des maladies hematogenes en milieu hospitalier. Un nouveau materiel de ponction veineuse. Cah Anesthesiol. 1991;39(8):549-50.
37. Marini MA, Giangregorio M, Kraskinski JC. Complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Bloodborne Pathogens Standard: Implementing Needleless Systems and Intravenous Safety Devices. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2004;20(3):209-14.
38. Waclawski ER. Evaluation of potential reduction in blood and body fluid exposures by use of alternative instruments. Occup Med. 2004;54(8):567-9.
39. News & views. Safety devices reduce phlebotomy injuries... report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (MMWR. 1997;46:21-25). Laboratory Medicine 1997;28(5):293-93.
40. Safety device evaluations produce efficacy data. Hospital Employee Health. 1997;16(4):40-43.
41. Bohony J. Fighting the needlestick battle without needles... needleless intravenous piggyback (IVPB) systems. Medsurg Nurs. 1993;2(6):469-76.
42. Keuren MV, Cunningham C, Hackman B, et al. Impact of a needleless system (NLS) for connecting intravenous tubing on the incidence of needlestick injuries. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(2):110.
43. Buerke B, Puesken M, Mellmann A, et al. Automatic MDCT injectors: Hygiene and efficiency of disposable, prefilled, and multidosing roller pump systems in clinical routine. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(2):W226-32.
44. Casey AL, Elliott TS. The usability and acceptability of a needleless connector system. Br J Nurs. 2007;16(5):267-71.
45. Ihrig M, Cookson ST, Campbell K, et al. Evaluation of the acceptability of a needleless vascular-access system by nurses. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25(5):434-8.
46. Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Sibbitt Jr WL. Integration of patient safety technologies into sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;42(5):446-55.
47. Suzuki R, Kimura S, Shintani Y, et al. The efficacy of safety winged steel needles on needlestick injuries. Kansenshogaku zasshi. 2006;80(1):39-45. The Journal of the Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases.
48. Catalan Gomez MT, Sol Vidiella J, Castella Castella M, et al. Implementation of safety devices: biological accident prevention. [Spanish] Implantacion de material de biosegurida: prevencion de accidentes biologicos. Revista de enfermeria (Barcelona, Spain). 2010;33(4):50-4.
49. Roudot-Thoraval F, Montagne O, Schaeffer A, et al. Costs and benefits of measures to prevent needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(9):614-7.
50. Griswold S, Bonaroti A, Rieder CJ, et al. Investigation of a safety-engineered device to prevent needlestick injury: Why has not StatLock stuck? BMJ Open 2013;3(4) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002327.
51. Reddy SG, Emery RJ. Assessing the effect of long-term availability of engineering controls on needlestick injuries among health care workers: a 3-year preimplementation and postimplementation comparison. Am J Infect Control. 2001;29(6):425-7.
52. Theou-Anton N, Sinegre M, Gasciolli S, et al. Quality and safety improvements in the preparation and administration of intravenous cytotoxic therapies with new medical devices. EJHP Pract. 2009;15(3):46-50.
53. Edwards C, Johnson C. Evaluation of a luer-activated intravenous administration system. JAVA. 2012;17(4):200-7.
54. Gartner K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(2):75-9.
55. Gershon RRM, Pearse L, Grimes M, et al. The impact of multifocused interventions on sharps injury rates at an acute-care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(12):806-11.
56. L'Ecuyer PB, Schwab EO, Iademarco E, et al. Randomized prospective study of the impact of three needleless intravenous systems on needlestick injury rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17(12):803-8.
57. Lawrence LW, Delclos GL, Felknor SA, et al. The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous connection system: an assessment by injury rate and user satisfaction. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18(3):175-82.
58. MacPherson J. The interlink needleless intravenous system did not reduce the number of needlestick injuries in Christchurch hospital operating theatres. N Z Med J. 1996;109(1031):387-8.
59. Orenstein R, Reynolds L, Karabaic M, et al. Do protective devices prevent needlestick injuries among health care workers? Am J Infect Control. 1995;23(6):344-51.
60. Skolnick R, LaRocca J, Barba D, et al. Evaluation and implementation of a needleless intravenous system: making needlesticks a needless problem. Am J Infect Control. 1993;21(1):39-41.
61. Terrell F, Williams B. Implementation of a customized needleless intravenous delivery system. J Intraven Nurs. 1993;16(6):339-44.
62. Wolfrum J. A follow-up evaluation to a needle-free I.V. system. Nurs Manag. 1994;25(12):33-5.
63. Yassi A, McGill ML, Khokhar JB. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a needleless intravenous access system. Am J Infect Control. 1995;23(2):57-64.
64. Mendelson MH, Short LJ, Schechter CB, et al. Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions: analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19(6):401-6.
65. Billiet LS, Parker CR, Tanley PC, Wallas CH. Needlestick injury rate reduction during phlebotomy: a comparative study of two safety devices. Lab Med. 1991;22(2):120-3.
66. McCleary J, Caldero K, Adams T. Guarded fistula needle reduces needlestick injuries in hemodialysis. Nephrol News Issues. 2002;16(6):66-70. 72.
67. Rogues A, Verdun-Esquer C, Buisson-Valles I, et al. Impact of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries related to phlebotomy procedures in health care workers. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(8):441-4.
68. Hoffmann C, Buchholz L, Schnitzler P. Reduction of needlestick injuries in healthcare personnel at a university hospital using safety devices. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013;8(1):20.
69. Lamontagne F, Abiteboul D, Lolom I, et al. Role of safety-engineered devices in preventing needlestick injuries in 32 French hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(1):18-23.
70. Sohn S, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA, et al. Effect of implementing safety-engineered devices on percutaneous injury epidemiology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(7):536-42.
71. Valls V, Lozano MS, Yanez R, et al. Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(12):1352-60.
72. Whitby M, McLaws M, Slater K. Needlestick injuries in a major teaching hospital: the worthwhile effect of hospital-wide replacement of conventional hollow-bore needles. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(3):180-6.
73. Elder A, Paterson C. Sharps injuries in UK health care: a review of injury rates, viral transmission and potential efficacy of safety devices. Occup Med. 2006;56(8):566-74.
74. Lavoie MC, Verbeek JH, Pahwa M. Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3:CD009740.
75. Mustafa RA, Santesso N, Brozek J, et al. The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):736-42. quiz 42 e1-5.
76. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311-6.