Abstract
Needlestick injuries frequently occur among healthcare workers, introducing high risk of bloodborne pathogen infection for surgeons, assistants, and nurses. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of both educational training and safeguard interventions to reduce needlestick injuries. Several databases were searched including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL and Sciencedirect. Studies were selected if the intervention contained a study group and a control group and were published between 2000 and 2010. Of the fourteen studies reviewed, nine evaluated a double-gloving method, one evaluated the effectiveness of blunt needle, and one evaluated a bloodborne pathogen educational training program. Ten studies reported an overall reduction in glove perforations for the intervention group. In conclusion, this review suggests that both safeguard interventions and educational training programs are effective in reducing the risk of having needlestick injuries. However, more studies using a combination of both safeguards and educational interventions in surgical and nonsurgical settings are needed.
Highlights
Needle-stick injuries are an important and common occupational injury among healthcare workers
Rates of detection are low, for example, only 11% of glove perforations were detected by the physician in a study investigating the use of blunt needles during obstetrical laceration repair surgeries [5]
All of the six terms were valid in MEDLINE, the first four terms were valid in Sciencedirect, and glove perforation produced different results in SCOPUS in addition to the results obtained from the other databases
Summary
Needle-stick injuries are an important and common occupational injury among healthcare workers. In a UK report, 37% of nurses reported that they have sustained a needle-stick injury at some stage during their career [1]. In Australia, the rate of reported needle-stick injuries is 1 in 5 occupied beds per year which equates to an annual sharps-related injuries incidence of 47,000 [2]. According to the policy of the NHS in the UK, it is compulsory when staff sustain a needle-stick injury to report the incident [3]. Evidence from the US suggests that more than half of all sharps-related injuries are not reported [1]. Poor reporting of sharps-related injuries reveals a failure to appreciate the potential consequences of such injuries [4]. Rates of detection are low, for example, only 11% of glove perforations were detected by the physician in a study investigating the use of blunt needles during obstetrical laceration repair surgeries [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
