Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Prevalence of Needlestick Injuries, Attitude Changes, and Prevention Practices Over 12 Years in an Urban Academic Hospital Surgery Department.

Annals of Surgery 2018 Februrary
OBJECTIVE: Needlestick injury prevalence, protection practices, and attitudes were assessed. Current medical students were compared with 2003 data to assess any changes that occurred with engineered safety feature implementation.

BACKGROUND: Risk of occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens is elevated in the operating room particularly with surgeons in training and nurses.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to medical students (n = 358) and Department of Surgery staff (n = 247).

RESULTS: The survey response rate was 24.8%. Needlestick injuries were reported by 38.7% of respondents (11% high risk), and the most common cause was "careless/accidental." Needlestick injury prevalence increased from medical students to residents and fellows (100%). Thirty-three percent of injured personnel had at least one unreported injury, and the most common reason was "inconvenient/too time consuming." Needlestick injury prevalence and double-glove use in medical students did not differ from 2003, and 25% of fellows reported always wearing double gloves. The true seroconversion rate for bloodborne pathogens was underestimated or unknown. The concern for contracting a bloodborne pathogen significantly decreased (65%) compared to 2003, and there were significantly less medical students with hepatitis B vaccinations (78.3%). Level of concern for contracting a bloodborne pathogen was predictive of needlestick injury.

CONCLUSIONS: Needlestick injury and occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens are significant hazards for surgeons and nurses. Attitudes regarding risk are changing, and the true seroconversion risk is underestimated. Educational efforts focused on needlestick injury prevalence, seroconversion rates, and double-glove perforation rates may be effective in implementing protective strategies.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app