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.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing risk changes of needlestick injuries between countries adopted and not adopted the needlestick safety and prevention act: A meta-analysis.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- The Investigation Into the Impact of Using SafePad on the Incidence Rate of Needlestick Injuries Among Iranian Nurses: A Pre- and Post-Test Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Circumstances of Percutaneous Sharps Injuries in German Healthcare Workers-An Analysis of the Ten-Year Period from 2015 to 2024 Based on Accident Insurance Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Analysis of Recognized Occupational Infectious Diseases in Germany Between 2018 and 2023.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2025Article
- A Survey of the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of a Sample of Albanian Medical Students in Relation to Occupational Exposure to Biological Agents.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Did safety-engineered device implementation contribute to reducing the risk of needlestick and sharps injuries? Retrospective investigation of 20 years of observation in a specialist tertiary referral hospital.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Biohazard Accidents, Harmful Elements to the Wellness of Healthcare Workers, and Their Risk Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- 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
- Prevention from Sharp Injuries in the Hospital Sector: An Italian National Observatory on the Implementation of the Council Directive 2010/32/EU before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Causes of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries When Using Devices with and without Safety Features.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
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
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
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.