One needle, one syringe, only one time? A survey of physician and nurse knowledge, attitudes, and practices around injection safety.

BACKGROUND: To inform development, targeting, and penetration of materials from a national injection safety campaign, an evaluation was conducted to assess provider knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to unsafe injection practices. METHODS: A panel of physicians (n = 370) and nurses (n = 320) were recruited from 8 states to complete an online survey. Questions, using 5-point Likert and Spector scales, addressed acceptability and frequency of unsafe practices (eg, reuse of a syringe on >1 patient). Results were stratified to identify differences among physician specialties and nurse practice locations. RESULTS: Unsafe injection practices were reported by both physicians and nurses across all surveyed physician specialties and nurse practice locations. Twelve percent (12.4%) of physicians and 3% of nurses indicated reuse of syringes for >1 patient occurs in their workplace; nearly 5% of physicians indicated this practice usually or always occurs. A higher proportion of oncologists reported unsafe practices occurring in their workplace. CONCLUSIONS: There is a dangerous minority of providers violating basic standards of care; practice patterns may vary by provider group and specialty. More research is needed to understand how best to identify providers placing patients at risk of infection and modify their behaviors.

¿Qué inyectables pueden ser administrados por vía oral o enteral? / Which injectable medication can be administered orally or enterally?

En este artículo recogemos los principios éticos y legales cuando hemos de decidir sobre el uso de un medicamento en condiciones distintas a las de su ficha técnica. Los medicamentos no siempre están disponibles en formulaciones adecuadas para pacientes con dificultades para tragar o pacientes con sondas de alimentación enteral. Por lo tanto, la modificación de las formas farmacéuticas puede ser necesaria. Se proporciona una lista de inyectables que pueden ser administrados por vía enteral mediante sondas de alimentación o por vía oral cuando no hay alternativas disponibles. Sin embargo, la idoneidad para la administración oral o enteral puede variar ampliamente. En este trabajo no consideramos la vía rectal, como una vía enteral adecuada para la administración de inyectables (AU)

In this article we collect the ethical and legal principles when we have to decide on the use of a drug in conditions other than those on its data sheet. Medicines are not always available in formulations which are suitable for patients with swallowing difficulties or patients with enteral feeding tubes. The alteration of medication formulations may therefore be necessary. This text provides a list of injectables that can be administered orally or via enteral feeding tubes when there are no available alternatives. However, they vary widely in their suitability for oral or enteral feeding administration. In this paper we do not consider the rectal route, as an adequate enteral route for administration of injectables (AU)

Evolution of the global use of unsafe medical injections, 2000-2010.

OBJECTIVE: Since 1999, substantial efforts have been made by the international community to reduce the risks associated with unsafe injections, through ministries of health, international donors, the World Health Organization and the Safe Injection Global Network. The present study attempted to measure the progress, or lack thereof, made over the 2000-2010 decade in reducing unsafe injections in ten regions of the world corresponding to developing and transitional economies. METHODS: Data about the number of injections per person per year and the proportion of re-use of syringes and needles were obtained for 2010, mainly from population surveys, and compared with previous estimates for 2000 which had used various sources of information including injection safety assessments, population surveys and published studies on injection practices. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2010, in developing countries and transitional economies, the average number of injections per person per year decreased from 3.40 to 2.88, while the proportion of re-use of injection devices dropped from 39.8% to 5.5%. Combining both factors the number of unsafe injections per person per year decreased from 1.35 to 0.16. Even if substantial progress has been made, the Eastern Mediterranean region remains problematic, with 0.57 unsafe injections per person per year. In sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, people now receive on average only 0.04-0.05 unsafe injections per year. CONCLUSION: Substantial progress has been made in reducing the number of unsafe injections in developing countries and transitional economies, essentially through a reduction in the re-use of injection devices. In some regions, elimination of unsafe injections might become a reasonable goal.

Risk, rationality, and regret: responding to the uncertainty of childhood food anaphylaxis.

Risk and uncertainty are unavoidable in clinical medicine. In the case of childhood food allergy, the dysphoric experience of uncertainty is heightened by the perception of unpredictable danger to young children. Medicine has tended to respond to uncertainty with forms of rational decision making. Rationality cannot, however, resolve uncertainty and provides an insufficient account of risk. This paper compares the medical and parental accounts of two peanut allergic toddlers to highlight the value of emotions in decision making. One emotion in particular, regret, assists in explaining the actions taken to prevent allergic reactions, given the diffuse nature of responsibility for children. In this light, the assumption that doctors make rational judgments while patients have emotion led preferences is a false dichotomy. Reconciling medical and lay accounts requires acknowledgement of the interrelationship between the rational and the emotional, and may lead to more appropriate clinical decision making under conditions of uncertainty.