ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2015
Barriers to the Adoption of Safety-Engineered Needles Following a Regulatory Standard: Lessons Learned from Three Acute Care Hospitals.
Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-Safety and Safety Device Sharp Injuries-Risk of Incidents, SEDs Availability, Attitudes and Perceptions of Nurses According to Cross-Sectional Survey in Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Needlestick and sharps injuries at a German university hospital: epidemiology, causes and preventive potential - a descriptive analysis.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2022Article
- Implementation of a disability management policy in a large healthcare employer: a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods evaluation.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Trends in needlestick injury incidence following regulatory change in Ontario, Canada (2004-2012): an observational study.BMC health services research · 2015Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA number of jurisdictions have introduced regulation to accelerate the adoption of safety-engineered needles (SENs). This study examined the transition to SENs in three acute care hospitals prior to and following the implementation of a regulatory standard in Ontario. This paper focuses on the ongoing barriers to the prevention of needlestick injuries among healthcare workers.
methodsInformation from document review and 30 informant interviews were used to prepare three case studies detailing each organization's implementation activities and outcomes.
resultsAll three hospitals responded to the regulatory requirements with integrity and needlestick injuries declined. However, needlestick injuries continued to occur during the activation of safety devices, during procedures and during instrument disposal. The study documented substantial barriers to further progress in needlestick injury prevention.
conclusionsHealthcare organizations should focus on understanding their site-specific challenges that contribute to ongoing injury risk to better understand issues related to product limitations, practice constraints and the work environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26571471PMC4748368What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.