Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31748292›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Needlestick prevention devices: data from hospital surveillance in Piedmont, Italy-comprehensive analysis on needlestick injuries between healthcare workers after the introduction of safety devices.

Maria Chiara Ottino, Andrea Argentero, Pier Angelo Argentero, Giacomo Garzaro, Carla Maria Zotti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Study on needle stick injuries during surgery and blunt needle use for reducing occupational exposure and hygiene benefits.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Biohazard Accidents, Harmful Elements to the Wellness of Healthcare Workers, and Their Risk Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Causes of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries When Using Devices with and without Safety Features.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Maria Chiara OttinoDepartement of Public Health and Pediatric Sciences, Universita degli Studi di Torino, Torino, Italy mottino@unito.it.ORCID 0000-0002-4573-0774
Andrea ArgenteroDepartement of Public Health and Pediatric Sciences, Universita degli Studi di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Pier Angelo ArgenteroHospital Prevention Infection Unit, Ospedale di Rivoli, Rivoli, Italy.
Giacomo GarzaroDepartement of Public Health and Pediatric Sciences, Universita degli Studi di Torino, Torino, Italy.
Carla Maria ZottiDepartement of Public Health and Pediatric Sciences, Universita degli Studi di Torino, Torino, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNeedlestick and sharps injuries (NSIs) involving healthcare workers (HCWs) are worldwide under surveillance since long time; the implementation of the European Directive 32/2010 regarding the mandatory use of safety-engineered devices (SEDs) seems to have reduced the number of these accidents. Our surveillance investigated the frequency and the modality of SED-related NSIs in the Piedmont region to verify changes in the epidemiology of these events.

methodsWe analysed the exposure records of NSIs, device usage data and structural data of 42 acute care hospitals and compared conventional and safety devices. We calculated the accident rates per 100 000 needles and, as a measure of SED efficacy, the relative risk between the use of safety and non-safety devices with a 95% CI. We also described the dynamics of the NSIs and the most involved professional groups of HCWs, procedures and devices.

resultsTotal and specific device accident rates for 100 000 needles were lower with the use of SEDs. In 2015-2016, there were 1640 NSIs, with a decreasing absolute number during the observation period; 18% were SEDs related. Half of the total accidents with SEDs occurred in the patient's room, and nurses were involved in 78% of the cases. The most involved devices were the butterfly needles and peripheral venous catheters, and the most involved procedures were venous sampling (40%) and phlebotherapy (16%). The exposures occurred mostly during the procedure, and 45% of the SED-related injuries occurred during the disposal of the device; 92% of the SEDs involved had a manual activation mechanism.

conclusionIn agreement with the results of other European studies, our results show that SEDs reduce the risk of percutaneous exposure of HCWs, but in introducing SEDs, we must select those with a higher level of safety (with a passive activation mechanism) and improve the healthcare staff training programmes.

Indexed as

Protective DevicesHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansItalyNeedlestick InjuriesOccupational Injuriesaccident preventionaccidents, occupationalequipment safetyhealth personnelneedlestick injuriesoccupational medicine

Identifiers

PMID31748292
PMCPMC6887025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.