ArticleCureus2025
Awareness and Perspectives of Doctors on Needle Stick Injuries at Port Sudan Teaching Hospital: A Quality Improvement Project.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeedlestick injuries (NSIs) pose a threat to healthcare workers (HCWs) by exposing them to bloodborne pathogens. Irrespective of safety devices and policies, knowledge, practice, and reporting gaps still exist. This study aimed to audit the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of HCWs regarding NSIs in a tertiary hospital and to determine the effects of educational and system-level interventions.
methodsA two-cycle quality-improvement audit was held at Port Sudan Teaching Hospital. Cycle 1 defined compliance at the baseline level through review of documents, staff surveys, and observation. Interventions were education sessions, practical workshops, quick-reference materials, better access to safety-engineered devices, and promotion of a nonpunitive reporting culture. Repeat measurements were conducted in Cycle 2 using the same standards: safety device use, no recapping, sharps container practices, immediate first aid, reporting, and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) procedures. A total of 97 HCWs participated (Cycle 1: n = 53; Cycle 2: n = 44).
resultsThe interventions produced significant improvements. Recognition of hepatitis B virus as a bloodborne risk increased from 33/53 (62.3%) to 39/44 (88.6%) (p = 0.003). Correct initiation of PEP within 72 hours rose from 18/53 (34.0%) to 34/44 (77.3%) (p < 0.001). Safety behaviors improved markedly: use of safety-engineered devices increased from 17/53 (32.1%) to 35/44 (79.5%) (p < 0.001); needle recapping decreased from 21/53 (39.6%) to 2/44 (4.5%) (p < 0.001); and correct use of sharps boxes (two-thirds full) increased from 15/53 (28.3%) to 34/44 (77.3%) (p < 0.001). Training uptake rose significantly: formal training increased from 6/53 (11.3%) to 21/44 (47.7%) (p < 0.001), and refresher training from 2/53 (3.8%) to 12/44 (27.3%) (p = 0.001). Awareness of a formal reporting system improved from 8/53 (15.1%) to 21/44 (47.7%) (p < 0.001). However, awareness of the hepatitis C virus and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as risk factors and some unsafe first-aid practices persisted as areas requiring further strengthening.
conclusionsAn education-based approach, reinforced by practical training, improved device availability, and a favorable reporting culture, led to significant improvements in NSI knowledge and safe practice. Continued refresher education and stronger communication about HCV/HIV risks are required to maintain and extend gains. Limitations include the single-center design, reliance on self-reports, and potential underreporting.
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.