Safety-Engineered Device Implementation: Does It Introduce Bias in Percutaneous Injury Reporting?
Authors:
- Janet EaganJEJanet Eagan
- Kent A. SepkowitzKSKent A. Sepkowitz
- 1 July 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
- Vol. 25 (7) , 543-547
Abstract
Objective: To examine whether implementation of safety-engineered devices in 2001 had an effect on rates of percutaneous injury (PI) reported by HCWs.Design: Before-and-after intervention trial comparing 3-year preintervention (1998–2001) and 2-year postintervention (2001–2002) periods. PI data from anonymous, self-administered surveys were prospectively entered into CDC NaSH software.Setting: A 427-bed, tertiary-care hospital in Manhattan.Participants: HCWs who attended state-mandated training sessions and completed the survey (1,132 preintervention; 821 postintervention).Intervention: Implementation of a “safer-needle system” composed of various safety-engineered devices for needle-safe TV delivery-insertion, blood collection, and intramuscular-subcutaneous injection.Results: Preintervention, the overall annual rate of PIs self-reported on the survey was 36.5 per 100 respondents, compared with 13.9 per 100 respondents postintervention (P < .01). The annual rate of formally reported PIs decreased from 8.3 to 3.1 per 100 respondents (P < .01). Report rates varied by occupational group (P ≤ .02). The overall rate did not change between study periods (22.7% to 22.3%), although reporting improved among nurses (23.6% to 44.4%, P = .03) and worsened among building services staff (90.5% to 50%, P = .03). HCWs with greater numbers of Pis self-reported on the survey were less likely to formally report injuries (P < .01). The two most common reasons for nonreport (ie, thought injury was low risk or believed patient was low risk for blood-borne disease) did not vary from preintervention to postintervention.Conclusions: Safety-engineered device implementation decreased rates of Pis formally reported and self-reported on the survey. However, this intervention, with concomitant intensive education, had varying effects on reporting behavior by occupation and a minimal effect on overall reporting rates.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effect of Implementing Safety-Engineered Devices on Percutaneous Injury EpidemiologyInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2004
- Percutaneous Injury, Blood Exposure, and Adherence to Standard Precautions: Are Hospital-Based Health Care Providers Still at Risk?Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Report of the Council on Scientific AffairsArchives of internal medicine (1960), 2001
- Occupational Exposure to Blood: Search for a Relation Between Personality and BehaviorInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 2000
- The Impact of Multifocused Interventions on Sharps Injury Rates at an Acute-Care HospitalInfection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 1999
- A survey of percutaneous/mucocutaneous injury reporting in a public teaching hospitalJournal of Hospital Infection, 1999
- Do protective devices prevent needlestick injuries among health care workers?American Journal of Infection Control, 1995
- Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospitalAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 1992
- Sharp object injuries in the hospital: Causes and strategies for preventionAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 1990
- Underreporting of needlestick injuries in a university hospitalAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 1983