ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
FMEA-based risk management improves the ability of oral healthcare personnel to prevent needlestick injuries.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the effectiveness of the SHEL model in reducing occupational exposure risks among pre-hospital emergency personnel: a retrospective cohort study (2018-2024).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Data-driven FMEA approach for hazard identification and risk evaluation in digital health.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
objectiveTo explore the application value of the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method in the risk management of needlestick injuries among oral healthcare personnel.
methodsA total of 37 healthcare workers from the dental department of Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, were selected as study subjects. Routine risk management procedures were followed from January 2021 to December 2021, serving as the control group, while FMEA-based risk management was implemented from January 2022 to December 2022, representing the research group. The Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated, and interventions were implemented for the top five identified failure modes. The RPN score, incidence of needlestick injuries, healthcare personnel's knowledge and awareness levels, prevention behavior, and rate of satisfaction with management were compared between the two groups.
resultsFMEA-based risk management identified weak knowledge of protection, disorganized placement of sharp instruments, failure to adhere to operational standards, improper operational procedures, and insufficient regulations for preventing needlestick injuries as the top five failure modes. The RPN scores for these modes were significantly lower in the research group (P<0.05). The research group also experienced a lower frequency and incidence of needlestick injury (P<0.05), along with higher levels of healthcare knowledge, awareness of prevention, and prevention behavior (P<0.05). Additionally, satisfaction with management was higher in the research group compared to the control group (P<0.05).
conclusionFMEA-based risk management can improve the ability of oral healthcare personnel to prevent needlestick injury, reduce the occurrence of such incidents, and enhance satisfaction with management. This approach holds promise for wider adoption.
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.