ArticleJournal of infection prevention2016
Characterisation of occupational blood and body fluid exposures beyond the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act.
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2016. 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.
- The Effectiveness of Intervention to Reduce Blood-Borne Pathogen Exposure Incidents in Healthcare Workers in the Largest Clinical Setting in Slovenia.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2025Article
- Occupational Exposure to Blood and Body Fluids Among Nurses in the Emergency Department and Intensive Care Units of Public Hospitals in Addis Ababa City: Cross-sectional Study.Environmental health insights · 2023Article
- 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
- Infections in Healthcare Workers in Germany-22-Year Time Trends.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the use of mandated safety engineered sharps devices (SESDs) and personal protective equipment in healthcare workers (HCWs) with occupational body fluid exposures (BFE) since the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act.
methodsTwo questionnaires were administered, over 3 years, to HCWs who reported sharps or splash BFEs. Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were used.
resultsOf the 498 questionnaires completed, nurses completed 262 (53%), house staff 155 (32 %), technicians 63 (13%) and phlebotomists 11 (2%). Four (1%) completers reported 'other' and three (1%) reported unknown. Sharps injuries accounted for 349 (70%) of the BFEs. SESDs were utilised 43% (128/299) of the time with a 54% (70/130) activation rate. Phlebotomists (80%; 8/10) and nurses (59%; 79/267) used SESDs more than doctors (27%; 31/86) and technicians (26%; 10/39) (
conclusionsSystematic regular training, appropriate protocols and iteratively providing the safest SESDs based on HCW experience and technological advances will further reduce the physical and emotional toll of BFEs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.