The experience and psychological impact of a sharps injury on a nursing student population in the UK.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to explore the experience and psychological impact of sustaining a sharps injury within a nursing student population in the UK. Design: A qualitative approach was taken, using two methods to gather data, namely a Twitter chat and interviews. METHODS: A Twitter chat was orchestrated to investigate the experiences of sharps injury with nursing students and registered nurses nationwide (n=71). Interviews were conducted with nursing students from a university in the UK who had sustained a sharps injury (n=12) to discover their experiences and the impact of the injury. Findings were then synthesised and examined. RESULTS: Some nursing students reported psychological impacts after sustaining the sharps injury, which affected both their professional and personal life. The qualitative findings were synthesised into eight themes. CONCLUSION: Sharps injuries can have many psychological impacts on the individual nursing student and necessary support should be available.

Influencing Vaccinations: A Buzzy Approach to Ease the Discomfort of a Needle Stick-a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The rate of annual influenza immunization in both the general public and health care workers is less than desirable. Mechanisms to improve compliance with recommendations are needed; prevention of immunization site pain has been suggested as a viable route because fear of pain and needles has been cited as a barrier. AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of thermomechanical stimulation (Buzzy) on postprocedure pain ratings during vaccination in adults. DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial of Buzzy during immunization. SETTINGS: Three hospitals and two community health centers which are part of a large, integrated health system. PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS: Employees presenting to employer-sponsored annual influenza vaccination clinics. METHODS: A 10-cm visual analog scale was used to rate preinjection anxiety and expectation of pain as well as postprocedure pain scores; participants also rated their satisfaction with the vaccine injection on a 10-point Likert scale. RESULTS: In total, 497 employee volunteers were recruited to participate. Preprocedure anxiety was similar between the experimental and control groups (1.53 vs. 1.48, p = .82), whereas self-reported postprocedure pain scores were significantly lower in the group that received the Buzzy during injection (0.87 vs. 1.12, p = .035). Mean satisfaction scores did not vary between the intervention and control groups (9.11 vs. 9.09, p = .87); however, more participants rated their experience as better than previous vaccination experiences in the Buzzy group than control (62.0% vs. 23.9%, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that Buzzy reduced pain experienced by adults undergoing annual influenza vaccination and may improve overall experience. Buzzy can be used in adult patients to reduce pain during immunization and is especially effective in those with high levels of anxiety.

Prevalence of Needlestick Injuries, Attitude Changes, and Prevention Practices Over 12 Years in an Urban Academic Hospital Surgery Department.

OBJECTIVE: Needlestick injury prevalence, protection practices, and attitudes were assessed. Current medical students were compared with 2003 data to assess any changes that occurred with engineered safety feature implementation. BACKGROUND: Risk of occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens is elevated in the operating room particularly with surgeons in training and nurses. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to medical students (n = 358) and Department of Surgery staff (n = 247). RESULTS: The survey response rate was 24.8%. Needlestick injuries were reported by 38.7% of respondents (11% high risk), and the most common cause was "careless/accidental." Needlestick injury prevalence increased from medical students to residents and fellows (100%). Thirty-three percent of injured personnel had at least one unreported injury, and the most common reason was "inconvenient/too time consuming." Needlestick injury prevalence and double-glove use in medical students did not differ from 2003, and 25% of fellows reported always wearing double gloves. The true seroconversion rate for bloodborne pathogens was underestimated or unknown. The concern for contracting a bloodborne pathogen significantly decreased (65%) compared to 2003, and there were significantly less medical students with hepatitis B vaccinations (78.3%). Level of concern for contracting a bloodborne pathogen was predictive of needlestick injury. CONCLUSIONS: Needlestick injury and occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens are significant hazards for surgeons and nurses. Attitudes regarding risk are changing, and the true seroconversion risk is underestimated. Educational efforts focused on needlestick injury prevalence, seroconversion rates, and double-glove perforation rates may be effective in implementing protective strategies.

Sharp injuries: a cross-sectional study among health care workers in a provincial teaching hospital in China.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study are to investigate the incidence and reporting behavior of sharp injuries among healthcare workers (HCWs) and identify the risk factors associated with these injuries. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in February 2017 in a provincial teaching hospital in China. Data were collected from 901 HCWs using a self-administered questionnaire which included demographic information, experience, and reporting behavior of sharp injuries. Stepwise logistical regression was used to analyze the risk factors. RESULTS: HCWs (248 [27.5%]) had sustained a sharp injury in the previous year. Factors including seniority, job category, title, education, department, and training programs were associated with the occurrence of sharp injuries. According to the stepwise logistical regression, seniority, and training programs were the risk factors associated with the occurrence of sharp injuries. Of 248 sharp injuries, 130 HCWs were exposed to blood. Only 44 (33.9%) HCWs reported their injuries to the concerned body. The main reasons for not reporting the sharp injuries were as follows: perception that the extent of the injury was light (30.2%), having antibodies (27.9%), and unaware of injury (16.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Sharp injuries in the studied hospital were common and were likely to be underreported. Therefore, an effective reporting system and sufficient education on occupational safety should be implemented by the relevant institutions. Moreover, it is important to take effective measures to manage sharp injuries in HCWs and provide guidance for their prevention.

The impact of sharps injuries on student nurses: a systematic review.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to discover the impact of sharps injuries in the student nurse population. BACKGROUND: Much is known and reported about sharps injuries in registered nurses, but there has been a lack of published evidence regarding sharps injuries within the student nurse population. METHOD: A systematic review of nursing, health and psychology databases was conducted. The limits set were publications between 1980 and 2014 in the English language. Studies were identified then, following a rigorous critical and quality appraisal with validated tools, were selected for the systematic review. RESULTS: A total of 40 articles met the inclusion criteria, reporting studies conducted in 18 countries. Psychological and physical impacts of sharps injuries in student nurses were reported, such as fear, anxiety and depression, although these impacts were not quantified using a validated instrument. CONCLUSION: The impact of sharps injuries can be severe, both psychological and physical. This systematic review shows that further research is needed into this, especially in under-researched areas such as the UK, to establish the impact of sharps injuries within this population. Further research would also aid the education and prevention of this harmful problem. The review also emphasises the psychological issues relating to sharps injuries, the impact these can have on individuals and the support and counselling that student nurses require after injury. RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE: These findings highlight the potential psychological issues that can result from sharps injuries in this population.

Psychosocial work characteristics and needle stick and sharps injuries among nurses in China: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: Psychosocial work characteristics may be associated with needle stick and sharps injuries (NSIs) among nurses. The current evidence is, however, sparse, inconclusive, and mainly limited to cross-sectional investigations. We aimed to contribute prospective data. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study among 1,791 female hospital nurses from China. At baseline and at a 1-year follow-up, fourteen psychosocial work characteristics were assessed by the short Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. At follow-up, any NSI in the workplace during the previous year was measured by participants' self-reports. We quantified associations between (1) psychosocial work characteristics at baseline and NSIs at follow-up by multivariate relative risks (Poisson regression) and (2) NSIs reported at follow-up with psychosocial work characteristics at follow-up (multivariate linear regression, among others, adjusted for psychosocial work characteristics at baseline). RESULTS: The only psychosocial work characteristic associated with a slightly increased risk of subsequent NSIs was quantitative demands. Examining the opposite direction of effect, we found that NSIs during the year preceding the follow-up were associated with slightly worse ratings of seven psychosocial work characteristics at follow-up (i.e., influence at work, meaning of work, commitment to the workplace, quality of leadership, social support, social community at work, and job insecurity). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our study does not provide compelling evidence for an association of psychosocial work characteristics and subsequent occurrence of NSIs. By contrast, experience of NSIs may predict less favorable perceptions of psychosocial work characteristics.

Needlestick injuries: causes, preventability and psychological impact.

Needlestick injuries (NSI) pose a significant health hazard among healthcare personnel (HCP). The aim of our prospective observational study was to evaluate the psychological impact of NSI and assess measures to prevent NSI. The target group was the medical staff and students of Frankfurt University Hospital who had experienced a NSI (n = 370) during the 12-month study period. Data were retrieved from accident insurance reports, occupational follow-up examinations and a standardized anonymous questionnaire sent to the affected HCP. Analysis of the completed questionnaires (232/370) revealed that stress (48.3 %) and tiredness (36.6 %) were common factors contributing to the NSI and that >80 % of the respondents were concerned about the consequences of the NSI. Higher levels of anxiety were reported when the patient was known to have a chronic virus infection. Stressful working conditions, lack of adequate protective medical/technical equipment and poor work routines were suggested as factors contributing to NSI.

Psychiatric consequences of needlestick injury.

BACKGROUND: Needlestick injuries (NSIs) are a common occupational hazard with potential physical health effects, including viral infections such as hepatitis and HIV. Less appreciated are the psychiatric consequences of NSIs, potentially including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and adjustment disorder (AD). AIMS: To study psychiatric consequences of NSIs by diagnosis, duration and severity of depressive symptoms. METHODS: Case control study from patients referred to a psychiatric trauma clinic diagnosed according to ICD-10 diagnostic research criteria guidelines. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was administered to measure depressive symptomatology and assess differences in depression severity between psychiatric trauma patients who had or had not experienced an NSI, and for relationships between the severity of depression and time since NSI using linear models. RESULTS: There were 17 NSI cases and 125 controls. NSI patients had moderately severe depressive symptoms (mean BDI score 22.7 15), which was similar to 125 non-NSI trauma patients. 13 of these 17 cases had AD and four had PTSD. None contracted infections from their NSI, but most described secondary effects of psychiatric illness on occupational, family and sexual functioning. Severity of depressive symptoms declined with time after NSI, but psychiatric illness lasted 1.78 months longer for every month a NSI patient waited for seronegative test results (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Enduring psychiatric illness can result from NSIs with a severity similar to other psychiatric trauma. Swift delivery of test results may reduce the duration of depression associated with NSI. Occupational health professionals need to be aware of the psychiatric and physical effects of NSIs.

Blood and body fluid exposures: consent for source patient testing.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to blood and body fluids (BBF) remains a major occupational hazard in health care. Routine testing of source patients for blood borne viruses where exposure has occurred is recommended in the UK. Whilst in practice source patient identification may be challenging the reasons why identified individuals are not tested, including issues relating to consent and procedure compliance, are not fully understood. AIMS: To identify the frequency of serological testing in identified source patients and the reasons for not testing, including refusal and absence of consent. METHODS: A review of all BBF exposure incidents reported to the Sheffield Occupational Health Service between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2009. RESULTS: Of 490 reported BBF exposure incidents source patients were identified in 87% of cases and tested in 56% of the incidents. Rates of source patient testing were higher following incidents affecting medical (76%) and nursing staff (69%) than those involving non-clinical (36%) and dental staff (17%). Reasons for not testing source serology among identifiable patients (151) were not recorded in 66% of incidents, in 20% there was incapacity to give consent and in 5% testing was refused. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that despite guidance, routine source testing is not universal. Incapacity to consent is a contributory factor for some source serology not being tested and clarification of the ethical and legal position would be helpful. Larger studies should explore other reasons why identified source patients are not tested in practice and explore the policy implications of those findings.

Post-traumatic stress disorder in trainee doctors with previous needlestick injuries.

BACKGROUND: Doctors are at particular risk of occupational needlestick injuries (NSI), and these may result in considerable acute anxiety and fear of disease transmission. AIMS: To measure the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among trainee doctors who had experienced an NSI. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to trainee doctors starting work in a large university hospital in the UK. The survey gathered demographic information and experience of previous NSI and included questions designed to assess the presence of PTSD via the Impact of Event Scale (IES), a widely used screening tool for PTSD. The six-item version of this tool (IES-6) was used in this study. RESULTS: Among the 147 doctors who participated, 80 (54%) had sustained at least one NSI during their training and 77 of these completed the IES-6 survey. Of note, 38% of injuries (30/80) were not reported to the occupational health or emergency departments. Using a cut-off level of 10 in the IES-6, 12% (9/77) of the doctors who suffered NSI during their training showed evidence of PTSD. Since the prevalence of PTSD in the general population is estimated at 3%, the odds ratio of PTSD in doctors who had NSI was 4.28 (95% confidence interval: 2.16-8.47). CONCLUSIONS: NSI injury is common among doctors in training. As 12% of doctors with experience of NSI had post-traumatic stress reactions, special attention should be paid to psychological impacts of NSIs. We would recommend further prospective studies.

Adverse reactions, psychological factors, and their effect on donor retention in men and women.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the effect of a vasovagal reaction (VVR) or needle reaction (NR) on the risk of stopping as a blood donor, taking into account variables from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Is stopping risk solely related to the adverse reaction itself, or do the TPB variables play a role as well? Emphasis is placed on possible sex differences. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TPB variables were assessed within 12,051 whole blood donors. Also, donors reported the occurrence of adverse reactions during or after their last donation. Blood bank records were used to determine whether donors stopped donating within the next 2 years. Logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the effect of self-reported adverse reactions on stopping risk, adjusting for the TPB variables. Analyses were performed separately for both sexes. RESULTS: Men have a lower odds of reporting a NR or a VVR than women (odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.43; and OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.36, for NR and VVR, respectively). For both sexes, only a VVR was associated with stopping risk, which is higher in men (men, OR 3.95, 95% CI 2.19-7.11; women, OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.35-2.35). After adjusting for the TPB variables both ORs declined (men, OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.86-6.15; women, OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.17-2.14). Also, self-efficacy and affective attitude are negatively associated with adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: Female donors report more VVRs than male donors, but male donors have a higher stopping risk after a VVR than female donors. Coping differences and possible reporting tendencies might play a role. For donor retention purposes, prevention and coping techniques should take sex differences into account.

Effect of epinephrine autoinjector design on unintentional injection injury.

Epinephrine is an essential medication for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Factors associated with autoinjector design may have a role in its correct use. We compared a new and old epinephrine autoinjector with respect to correct autoinjector use. We invited all interns of the 2011-2012 training period in our medical school. The participants were randomly assigned into two groups. After all participants were given a three-step written and visual instruction sheet about epinephrine autoinjector use, they were asked to show its use either with the old or the new epinephrine autoinjector trainer. The old and new trainers, which were exactly identical to the original epinephrine autoinjectors except for the medication and needle, were used. The performance of each participant was assessed with a standardized scoring system. Among 220 invited interns, 180 (81.8%) were enrolled. The number of participants correctly showing the use of epinephrine autoinjectors and the mean total score did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.639 and p = 0.233, respectively). Significantly fewer participants had unintentional injections in the new compared with the old epinephrine autoinjector group (p < 0.001). When all assessment steps are considered, only the rate of placing a wrong tip into the outer thigh was significantly lower in the new compared with the old epinephrine autoinjector group (p < 0.05). The new epinephrine autoinjector is more effective in unintentional injection injuries than the old one; however, it still does not fulfill the criteria of an ideal epinephrine autoinjector.

Clinical correlates of pain and anxiety in prenatal diagnostic procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To study patient perception of pain and anxiety before and after amniocentesis (AC) and transabdominal chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and the clinical correlates of pain and anxiety. METHODS: 92 women underwent AC and 78 CVS. Visual analog scale was used to quantify pain and anxiety, immediately before and after the procedure. Factors which could affect pain and anxiety were noted. RESULTS: The pain and anxiety anticipated before the procedures were significantly less than actually perceived. The pre-procedure anxiety did not correlate with post-procedure pain. There was no correlation between anticipated pain or anxiety and age, parity, education, socioeconomic status, and history of procedure in previous pregnancy in both the AC and CVS groups. Post-procedure pain did not correlate with age, parity, education, socioeconomic status, abdominal scar, placental location, number of needle insertion, repeat procedure or abdominal wall thickness in either group. However, on multiple linear regression the overall post-procedure pain was associated with the number of needle insertions. CONCLUSION: Though pre-procedure pain and anxiety levels are high, most patient experience less pain and anxiety after the procedure.

Sharps injuries and job burnout: a cross-sectional study among nurses in China.

The present study investigated the relationship between sharps injuries and job burnout in nurses. Sharps injury questionnaires and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) questionnaires were used to investigate and analyze job burnout among 468 nurses, of which 458 effective questionnaires were collected, for a response rate of 97.86%. A total of 292 nurses had at least one sharps injury (63.76% of the 458 nurses). The dimension scores were higher for injured nurses compared with non-injured nurses. The difference between the dimensions of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization for nurses with sharps injuries was statistically significant (P < 0.05). A rank correlation analysis showed that these two dimensions had a positive correlation with sharps injuries (r = 0.69-0.78). The prevalence of sharps injuries in nursing is associated with depersonalization, as measured by the MBI. Nursing administrators should pay more attention to clinically burned-out nurses, and provide more opportunity to nurses for training and education to reduce the prevalence of sharps injuries.

Needlestick and sharps injuries: practice update.

Member states of the European Union have until May 112013 to implement the Council Directive 2010/32/EU Implementing the Framework Agreement on Prevention from Sharps Injuries in the Hospital and Healthcare Sector. The aim of this legislation is to achieve a safe working environment and prevent injuries to healthcare professionals caused by all medical sharps, including needlesticks. This article examines the issues surrounding needlestick and sharps injuries, including risk assessment and prevention, information provision, raising awareness, use of safety devices, training and reporting procedures.

Home health nurses' perceived care errors.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimates that every year 44,000 to 98,000 people die due to errors in hospitals, costing approximately $37.6 billion each year (2000). However, limited data are available detailing the extent of healthcare errors outside of hospitals. A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess how home health nurses perceive and deal with errors. A convenience sample of home health agencies (N = 33) located in a Southeastern state participated in the study. Packets containing sealed surveys, a flier, and a description of the study were mailed to the nurses. Nurses were asked to complete a survey about their most significant care error and how they responded. Results from the study on home health nurses' perceptions (N = 203) indicate that the perceived care errors were medication (40%), laboratory (15.5%), wound care (6.5%), scheduling and wrong patient visits (6%), teaching-care errors (5%), and needle sticks (1%). Medication errors remain the most commonly occurring error in the home healthcare area.

Needlestick injuries among surgeons in training.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons in training are at high risk for needlestick injuries. The reporting of such injuries is a critical step in initiating early prophylaxis or treatment. METHODS: We surveyed surgeons in training at 17 medical centers about previous needlestick injuries. Survey items inquired about whether the most recent injury was reported to an employee health service or involved a "high-risk" patient (i.e., one with a history of infection with human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B or hepatitis C, or injection-drug use); we also asked about the perceived cause of the injury and the surrounding circumstances. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 95%. Of 699 respondents, 582 (83%) had had a needlestick injury during training; the mean number of needlestick injuries during residency increased according to the postgraduate year (PGY): PGY-1, 1.5 injuries; PGY-2, 3.7; PGY-3, 4.1; PGY-4, 5.3; and PGY-5, 7.7. By their final year of training, 99% of residents had had a needlestick injury; for 53%, the injury had involved a high-risk patient. Of the most recent injuries, 297 of 578 (51%) were not reported to an employee health service, and 15 of 91 of those involving high-risk patients (16%) were not reported. Lack of time was the most common reason given for not reporting such injuries among 126 of 297 respondents (42%). If someone other than the respondent knew about an unreported injury, that person was most frequently the attending physician (51%) and least frequently a "significant other" (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Needlestick injuries are common among surgeons in training and are often not reported. Improved prevention and reporting strategies are needed to increase occupational safety for surgical providers.

Needle stick injuries among health care workers in a tertiary care hospital of India.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous injuries caused by needlesticks, pose a significant risk of occupational transmission of bloodborne pathogens. Their incidence is considerably higher than current estimates, and hence a low injury rate should not be interpreted as a non existent problem. The present study was carried out to determine the occurrence of NSI among various categories of health care workers (HCWs), and the causal factors, the circumstances under which these occur and to, explore the possibilities of measures to prevent these through improvements in knowledge, attitude and practice. METHODS: The study group consisted of 428 HCWs of various categories of a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi, and was carried out with the help of an anonymous, self-reporting questionnaire structured specifically to identify predictive factors associated with NSIs. RESULTS: The commonest clinical activity to cause the NSI was blood withdrawal (55%), followed by suturing (20.3%) and vaccination (11.7%). The practice of recapping needles after use was still prevalent among HCWs (66.3%). Some HCWs also revealed that they bent the needles before discarding (11.4%). It was alarming to note that only 40 per cent of the HCWs knew about the availability of PEP services in the hospital and 75 per cent of exposed nursing students did not seek PEP. INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed a high occurrence of NSI in HCWs with a high rate of ignorance and apathy. These issues need to be addressed, through appropriate education and other interventional strategies by the hospital infection control committee.

Needlestick injuries during surgical procedures: a multidisciplinary online study.

BACKGROUND: Needlestick injuries are common during surgical procedures. Following such an injury, local protocols should be followed to minimize the risk of infection. AIMS: To identify who sustains such injuries, under what circumstances and what actions are taken to minimize the risk and in response to intraoperative needlestick injuries. METHODS: A questionnaire was submitted via e-mail to all staff in a National Health Service trust who took part in operations. The results were checked against occupational health department (OHD) records. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six of 255 appropriate responders completed the questionnaire (53%). Fifteen of 31 consultants (48%), 12/36 junior doctors (33%), 0/39 midwives (0%) and 8/30 theatre staff (27%) reported having had at least one intraoperative needlestick injury over the past year. Awareness of local protocols was significantly worse in the junior doctor group. Ninety-three percent of consultants, 67% of junior doctors and 13% of theatre staff did not comply with local protocols. The length of time it takes to do so (48%) and a perceived low infection risk of the patient (78%) were the commonest reasons for this. Hand dominance, role during surgery and double gloving were not significant risk factors; however, rare use of a no-touch technique was. Comparison with OHD records suggested that a maximum of 16% of intraoperative needlestick injuries were dealt with in accordance to local policy. CONCLUSIONS: Non-compliance with needlestick injury protocols is commonest among senior surgical staff. A revision of the protocol to reduce the time it takes to complete it may improve compliance.