Blood and Body Fluid Exposure Among Healthcare Workers and Personal Protective Equipment Usage in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The International Safety Center disseminates the Exposure Prevention Information Network (EPINet) surveillance system to standardize a system for healthcare facilities to track mucocutaneous blood and body fluid exposures. METHODS: Occupational exposure incidents to blood and body fluids were recorded within the participant health systems and hospitals (N = 41), using the EPINet Blood and Body Fluid Exposure Report Form. Forms include detailed questions about the circumstances surrounding the exposure, including the type of exposure, body part(s) involved, and if the employee reporting the incident was wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between participants who wore PPE at time of exposure versus those who did not. Differences were noted by job category (χ2 =32.91, p-value = <.001); where the exposure occurred (χ2 = 32.31, p-value = <.001); what the exposure was a result of (χ2 = 50.19, p-value = <.001); and day versus night shift (χ2 = 11.47, p-value = .001). CONCLUSION/APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE: The study found that occupational exposure to blood and body fluids in 2021 remain high risk given the frequency with which they happen, the exposure site (face) and lack of PPE use. The pandemic seemed to matter little in changing frequencies despite high awareness and growing PPE availability and supply. The findings provide robust information about how exposures occur, why they remain high risk, and how important it is to improve reporting and surveillance to prevent occupational exposures and disease in healthcare in future.

Issues in understanding the impact of the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act on hospital sharps injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Measuring the effect of the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act (NSPA) is challenging. No agreement exists on a common denominator for calculating injury rates. Does it make a difference? How are the law and safety-engineered devices related? What is the effect on injuries and costs? This study examines those issues in assessing the impact of the legislation on hospital worker percutaneous injuries. METHODS: Using a historic prospective design, we analyzed injury data from 85 hospitals. Injury rates were calculated per 100 full-time equivalents, 100 staffed beds, and 100 admissions each year from 1995 to 2005. We compared changes for each denominator. We measured the proportion of the injury rate attributed to safety-engineered devices. Finally, we estimated a national change in injuries and associated costs. RESULTS: For all denominators, a precipitous drop in injury rates of greater than one-third ([Formula: see text]) occurred in 2001, immediately following the legislation. The decrease was sustained through 2005. Concomitant with the decrease in rates, the proportion of injuries from safety-engineered devices nearly tripled ([Formula: see text]) across all denominators. We estimated annual reductions of more than 100,000 sharps injuries at a cost savings of $69-$415 million. CONCLUSIONS: While the data cannot demonstrate cause and effect, the evidence suggests a reduction in hospital worker injury rates related to the NSPA, regardless of denominator. It also suggests an association between the increase in safety-engineered devices and the reduction in overall injury rates. The decreases observed translate into significant reductions in injuries and associated costs.

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

A retrospective review of secondary injury data was used to evaluate the characteristics of percutaneous injuries from safety-engineered sharp devices. Injury rates and safety device activation rates differed by healthcare provider type. Approximately 22.8%-32% of injuries could have been prevented had an available safety feature been activated after use.

Risk of bloodborne pathogen exposure among Zambian healthcare workers.

PURPOSE: Understanding the risks of bloodborne pathogen transmission is fundamental to prioritizing interventions when resources are limited. This study investigated the risks to healthcare workers in Zambia. DESIGN: A survey was completed anonymously by a convenience sample of workers in three hospitals and two clinics in Zambia. Respondents provided information regarding job category, injuries with contaminated sharps, hepatitis B vaccination status and the availability of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). RESULTS: Nurses reported the largest number of injuries. The average annual sharps injury rate was 1.3 injuries per worker, and service workers (housekeepers, laundry, ward assistants) had the highest rate of these injuries, 1.9 per year. Injuries were often related to inadequate disposal methods. Syringe needles accounted for the largest proportion of injuries (60%), and 15% of these injuries were related to procedures with a higher-than-average risk for infection. Most workers (88%) reported the availability of PEP, and only 8% were fully vaccinated against hepatitis B. CONCLUSIONS: The injury risks identified among Zambian workers are serious and are exacerbated by the high prevalence of bloodborne pathogens in the population. This suggests that there is a high risk of occupationally acquired bloodborne pathogen infection. The findings also highlight the need for a hepatitis B vaccination program focused on healthcare workers. The risks associated with bloodborne pathogens threaten to further diminish an already scarce resource in Zambia - trained healthcare workers. To decrease these risks, we suggest the use of low-cost disposal alternatives, the implementation of cost-sensitive protective strategies and the re-allocation of some treatment resources to primary prevention.

Disposal of sharps medical waste in the United States: impact of recommendations and regulations, 1987-2007.

BACKGROUND: To gauge the impact of regulatory-driven improvements in sharps disposal practices in the United States over the last 2 decades, we analyzed percutaneous injury (PI) data from a national surveillance network from 2 periods, 1993-1994 and 2006-2007, to see whether changes in disposal-related injury patterns could be detected. METHODS: Data were derived from the EPINet Sharps Injury Surveillance Research Group, established in 1993 and coordinated by the International Healthcare Worker Safety Center at the University of Virginia. For the period 1993-1994, 69 hospitals contributed data; the combined average daily census for the 2 years was 24,495, and the total number of PIs reported was 7,854. For the period 2006-2007, 33 hospitals contributed data; the combined average daily census was 6,800, and the total number of PIs reported was 1901. RESULTS: In 1992-1993, 36.8% of PIs reported were related to disposal of sharp devices. In 2006-2007, this proportion was 19.3%, a 53% decline. CONCLUSIONS: This comparison provides evidence that implementation of point-of-use, puncture-resistant sharps disposal containers, combined with large-scale use of safety-engineered sharp devices, has resulted in a marked decline in sharps disposal-related injury rates in the United States. The protocol for removing and replacing full sharps disposal containers remains a critical part of disposal safety.

Increase in sharps injuries in surgical settings versus nonsurgical settings after passage of national needlestick legislation.

BACKGROUND: The operating room is a high-risk setting for occupational sharps injuries and bloodborne pathogen exposure. The requirement to provide safety-engineered devices, mandated by the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000, has received scant attention in surgical settings. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed percutaneous injury surveillance data from 87 hospitals in the United States from 1993 through 2006, comparing injury rates in surgical and nonsurgical settings before and after passage of the law. We identified devices and circumstances associated with injuries among surgical team members. RESULTS: Of 31,324 total sharps injuries, 7,186 were to surgical personnel. After the legislation, injury rates in nonsurgical settings dropped 31.6%, but increased 6.5% in surgical settings. Most injuries were caused by suture needles (43.4%), scalpel blades (17%), and syringes (12%). Three-quarters of injuries occurred during use or passing of devices. Surgeons and residents were most often original users of the injury-causing devices; nurses and surgical technicians were typically injured by devices originally used by others. CONCLUSIONS: Despite legislation and advances in sharps safety technology, surgical injuries continued to increase during the period that nonsurgical injuries decreased significantly. Hospitals should comply with requirements for the adoption of safer surgical technologies, and promote policies and practices shown to substantially reduce blood exposures to surgeons, their coworkers, and patients. Although decisions affecting the safety of the surgical team lie primarily in the surgeon's hands, there are also roles for administrators, educators, and policy makers.

Increase in sharps injuries in surgical settings versus nonsurgical settings after passage of national needlestick legislation.

BACKGROUND: The operating room is a high-risk setting for occupational sharps injuries and bloodborne pathogen exposure. The requirement to provide safety-engineered devices, mandated by the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000, has received scant attention in surgical settings. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed percutaneous injury surveillance data from 87 hospitals in the United States from 1993 through 2006, comparing injury rates in surgical and nonsurgical settings before and after passage of the law. We identified devices and circumstances associated with injuries among surgical team members. RESULTS: Of 31,324 total sharps injuries, 7,186 were to surgical personnel. After the legislation, injury rates in nonsurgical settings dropped 31.6%, but increased 6.5% in surgical settings. Most injuries were caused by suture needles (43.4%), scalpel blades (17%), and syringes (12%). Three-quarters of injuries occurred during use or passing of devices. Surgeons and residents were most often original users of the injury-causing devices; nurses and surgical technicians were typically injured by devices originally used by others. CONCLUSIONS: Despite legislation and advances in sharps safety technology, surgical injuries continued to increase during the period that nonsurgical injuries decreased significantly. Hospitals should comply with requirements for the adoption of safer surgical technologies, and promote policies and practices shown to substantially reduce blood exposures to surgeons, their coworkers, and patients. Although decisions affecting the safety of the surgical team lie primarily in the surgeon's hands, there are also roles for administrators, educators, and policy makers.