Prevalence and Post-exposure Prophylaxis use for Needlestick Injuries among Health Care Providers in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kochi, India: [1]

Abstract

Aim : The post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) protocol in needlestick injuries (NSIs) associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) needs to be evaluated in a developing country like India. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of NSI and PEP use for HIV exposure in NSIs among health care providers (HPs) in India.

Materials and Methods : A cross-sectional, institution-based study was conducted among HPs in Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, India. Secondary data for 8 years were recorded. The study population included HPs who had NSIs and who reported to the Emergency Department of the hospital. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were used.

Results : A total of 949 self-reported cases of NSIs from January 2006 to December 2014 were reported, of which 42.9% were from staff nurses. HPs employed in general/specialty wards (32.5%) had the highest NSI incidence rate. In total, 67.7% of the NSIs were moderately deep, while 22.6% of them were superficial. The commonest device involved was the hypodermic needle (36.7%). Most NSIs occurred during "post-procedure work-up" (64%). Further, 32 HPs had received NSIs from known HIV seropositive patients. Totally, 62.5% of the HPs involved were staff nurses, with a mean age of 26 years. Of the 32 HPs, 28 were given prophylactic triple-drug anti-retroviral treatment. All 28 HPs were followed up for 6 months, and no seropositivity was reported.

Conclusion : The present study shows the high prevalence of NSIs among HPs, particularly among staff nurses. HPs have always known to be at risk of contracting acquired infectious diseases. In light of new emerging communicable diseases with new or unknown pathogens as causative agents, the prevention of NSIs among HPs has acquired significant value. Periodic health education campaigns should be promoted, and strict adherence to standard precautionary protocols should be made mandatory to prevent and minimize the incidence of NSIs among HPs. Periodic updates about PEP should also be made to raise awareness among HPs.

Original Article

73

Prevalence and Post-exposure Prophylaxis use for Needlestick Injuries among Health Care Providers in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kochi, India

Arun Kumar Krishnan1, Gireesh Kumar KS1, Srinath Kumar TS2, Sreekrishnan TP1, Vijay Kumar3, Sumi Soman4

1Department of Emergency Medicine, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India

2Departmnt of Emergency Medicine, Narayana Hospital, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore, India

3Department of Public Health Dentistry, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India

4Department of Public Health, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India

Abstract

Aim: The post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) protocol in needlestick injuries (NSIs) associated with human immunodeciency virus (HIV) needs to be evaluated in a developing country like India. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of NSI and PEP use for HIV exposure in NSIs among health care providers (HPs) in India.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, institution-based study was conducted among HPs in Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, India. Secondary data for 8 years were recorded. The study population included HPs who had NSIs and who reported to the Emergency Department of the hospital. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were used.

Results: A total of 949 self-reported cases of NSIs from January 2006 to December 2014 were reported, of which 42.9% were from sta nurses. HPs employed in general/specialty wards (32.5%) had the highest NSI incidence rate. In total, 67.7% of the NSIs were moderately deep, while 22.6% of them were supercial. The commonest device involved was the hypodermic needle (36.7%). Most NSIs occurred during post-procedure work-up (64%). Further, 32 HPs had received NSIs from known HIV seropositive patients. Totally, 62.5% of the HPs involved were sta nurses, with a mean age of 26 years. Of the 32 HPs, 28 were given prophylactic triple-drug anti-retroviral treatment. All 28 HPs were followed up for 6 months, and no seropositivity was reported.

Conclusion: The present study shows the high prevalence of NSIs among HPs, particularly among sta nurses. HPs have always known to be at risk of contracting acquired infectious diseases. In light of new emerging communicable diseases with new or unknown pathogens as causative agents, the prevention of NSIs among HPs has acquired signicant value. Periodic health education campaigns should be promoted, and strict adherence to standard precautionary protocols should be made mandatory to prevent and minimize the incidence of NSIs among HPs. Periodic updates about PEP should also be made to raise awareness among HPs. (Eurasian J Emerg Med 2016; 15: 73-7)

Keywords: Needlestick injuries, health care providers, post-exposure prophylaxis, emergency department

Introduction

Health care providers (HPs) are at a higher risk of occupational exposure to blood-borne infections through percutaneous exposure. The World Health Organization has stated that worldwide, nearly three million HPs experience such an incident (1). Around 60 pathogens can be transmitted through needlestick injuries (NSIs), of which human immunodeciency virus (HIV) tops the list (2). NSIs have a 0.3% risk of transmitting HIV, which is the second highest (3).

Around 57% of HPs had multiple unreported NSIs in the preceding 12 months, which highlights a negligence seen among HPs (4).However, previous studies have suggested that anti-retroviral treatment (ART) reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 81% following occupational exposure (5). Limited epidemiological studies regarding the risk and circumstances of NSIs among HPs have been identied in developing countries; the use of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) has also been identied. The availability of similar epidemio-logical data will help in formulating an eective prophylactic strat-

Correspondence to: Arun Kumar Krishnan e-mail: [email protected]: 26.03.2016 Accepted: 09.05.2016 Copyright 2016 by Emergency Physicians Association of Turkey - Available online at www.eajem.com

DOI: 10.5152/eajem.2016.47966

74

Krishnan et al.

Needlestick Injuries Among Health Care Providers

Eurasian J Emerg Med 2016; 15: 73-7

egy against NSIs in India. Hence, we conducted this study with the

following objectives:(a) To assess the prevalence of NSIs among HPs(b) To assess PEP use among HPs following HIV exposure in NSIs

Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among HPs in Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, India to assess the prevalence of NSIs and PEP use among HPs following HIV exposure. This study was conducted at the Emergency Department (ED) and Infection Control Department in AIMS. This is a tertiary care institution with an average number of in-patients of 25,000 per year and employs approximately 2500 HPs. Institutional ethical committee approval was obtained prior to the commencement of the study. The study population selected was HPs comprising doctors, sta nurses, nursing assistants, health care volunteers, lab workers, students, and paramedical sta who had a documented occupational/percutaneous exposure by a needlestick. All NSIs were self-reported to the ED from January 2006 to December 2014, which were systematically recorded by the Infection Control Department. Data were classied as per the Epinet (University of Virginia) format on the basis of job category, department, device type, procedure involved, injury depth, time since initiating PEP following NSI, prescribed regimen, and follow-up status. ELISA, which conrms HIV infection, was performed immediately and at the sixth month post-exposure. On reporting to the ED, possible sources were identied and conrmed by a serology test for communicable diseases for both health care workers and the patient source.

NSIs are dened as injuries caused by an object such as hypodermic needles, IV cannulas, blood collection needles, suture needles, winged IV sets, and needles used to connect parts of IV delivery systems (6). The severity of injury was dened as a supercial (surface scratch and absence of bleeding), moderate (penetration of skin and bleeding), or deep (deep puncture or wound with or without bleeding (5)). PEP consisted of rst aid, counseling, risk assessment, and short-term courses of anti-retroviral given for 30 days, along with follow-up and evaluation.

Statistical analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Science version 20 (IBM SPSS Statistics, New York; USA) was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency and percentage of occupational exposure. Logistic regression was used to nd the association of the variables with HIV exposure. Tables and graphs are used to present the results.

Results

A total of 949 cases were reported from 2006 to 2014, and the highest incidence was noted in 2014 (15.2%) (Figure 1). Overall, there was a signicant preponderance of the occurrence of NSIs among sta nurses (42.9%), followed by nursing assistants, and housekeepers with 16.9% and 9.2%, respectively. The incidence rate among doctors in our study was comparatively low (5%) (Figure 2).

The highest incidence rate of NSIs was reported in the patient room/ward (32.5%), followed by the dental clinic (18.1%) and ICU (18%). In total, 67.7% of the sustained NSIs were moderately deep, while 22.6% of injuries were supercial. The types of needles causing the NSIs were

hypodermic needles (36.7%), disposable syringes (14.9%), and intravenous catheters (10%), followed by other needles (Table 1).

Most NSIs reported were during post-procedure work-up (64%), of which 22.4% of NSIs occurred during manipulation after procedure and 9.7% during recapping, while 36% occurred during the procedure, of which 19.8% were during the use of needles (Table 2).

A total of 32 HPs of the 949 cases had received NSIs from known HIV seropositive patients, of which 62.5% of the HPs were sta nurses. In total, 84.4% of the HIV exposure cases following NSIs comprised female HPs. The mean age of HPs who received NSIs from known HIV seropositive patients were 26.6 years (Table 3). The commonest device involved was the hypodermic needle (65.6%) (Table 4). The greatest number of HIV exposure cases due to NSIs, occurred in the ICU (40.6%).

All the 28 cases were initiated on triple-drug ART, containing tenofovir 300 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and efavirenz 600 mg, taken orally, once daily, 2 h after food at night time for 30 days. Four of the HPs deferred due to the fear of side eects. All the HPs at risk were asked to do HIV ELISA on the day of sustaining the NSIs, followed by HIV-RNA PCR two weeks after the NSIs, and HIV ELISA during follow-up at 1 month and 6 months, respectively, and no seropositivity was reported in any of the cases.

Figure 1. Distribution of the incidence of needlestick injuries by year

Figure 2. Prevalence of needlestick injuries among health care providers

Eurasian J Emerg Med 2016; 15: 73-7

Krishnan et al.

Needlestick Injuries Among Health Care Providers 75

Table 1. Properties of needlestick injuries

Table 2. Procedures associated with needlestick injuries

Procedure

Frequency

%

During the Procedure

During the use of needles

188

19.8

Blood collection

44

4.6

Between steps of a multi-step procedure

25

2.6

Intravenous line insertion

26

2.7

During surgery

20

2.1

Checking random blood sugar

18

1.9

Giving injection

10

1.1

Cleaning

6

0.6

Suturing

4

0.4

Withdrawing a needle from rubber or other resistance

2

0.2

After the Procedure

Manipulation after use before disposal

213

22.4

Recapping

92

9.7

Device left on the floor, table, bed or other place

67

7.1

After disposal protruding from disposal

26

2.7

Item pierced the side of disposal container

23

2.4

While putting items into the disposal container

45

4.7

Waste collection

16

1.7

Disassembling device

10

1.1

In preparation for reuse of reusable

3

0.3

From items left on the floor near a disposal container

2

0.2

Others

109

11.5

Total

949

100.0

Section-wise

Distribution of Needlestick Injuries

Frequency

%

Patient Room/Ward

308

32.5

Dental Clinic

172

18.1

Intensive Care Unit

171

18.0

Procedure Room

73

7.7

Out Patient Clinic

60

6.3

Emergency Department

49

5.2

Other Describe

42

4.4

Service/Utility

29

3.1

Clinical Laboratories

25

2.6

Outside Patient Room

15

1.6

Dialysis Unit

5

0.5

Depth of Injury

Superficial

226

23.8

Moderate

629

66.3

Severe

94

9.9

Devices Associated with Needlestick Injuries

Hypodermic Needle

348

36.7

Syringe Disposable

141

14.9

Intravenous Catheter

95

10

Needle Holder/Vacuum Tube

82

8.6

Suture Needle

82

8.6

Vacuette Needle

54

5.7

Intravenous Stylet

39

4.1

Needle On Intravenous Tubing

31

3.3

Syringe, Prefilled Cartridge

28

3

Needle, Other Vascular Catheter

17

1.8

Butterfly Needle

14

1.5

Needle Described

8

0.8

Needle Unknown Type

5

0.5

Syringe, Other Type

3

0.3

Trocar

2

0.2

Total

949

100

Table 3. Distribution of HIV exposure among health care providers

Job Category

Number

%

Staff Nurse

20

62.5

Doctors

5

15.6

Nursing Students

3

9.4

Nursing Assistants

4

12.5

Total

32

100

On a logistic regression of variables with HIV exposure, the only variable signicantly associated with HIV exposure was the job category of the HP. Sta nurses were proven to have 1.56 times more risk compared to the other HPs (OR=1.56, 95% CI 0.584.19, p=0.026).

Discussion

From a literature search, only a few hospital-based studies on the incidence of NSIs among HPs in South India could be obtained.

A total of 949 self-reported cases of NSIs from January 2006 to December 2014 were recorded, with the incidence of NSIs increasing over the years. The increased incidence of NSIs among HPs can be explained by the circumstances/procedures during which the exposure had occurred, ineective in-service education and training on

76

Krishnan et al.

Needlestick Injuries Among Health Care Providers

Eurasian J Emerg Med 2016; 15: 73-7

Table 4. Devices and HIV exposure

Type of Device

Number

%

Hypodermic needle

21

65.6

IV stylet

7

21.9

Vacuette needle

2

6.3

K wire

1

3.1

Prefilled cartridge

1

3.1

Total

32

100.0

the use of person protection equipment, relative inexperience, and negligence from the HP. All HPs, after recruitment, are given initial training in infection control and waste management.

In the present study, the incidence of NSIs in a calendar year was only 105.4 HP, which could be explained by some underreporting. The main reasons for underreporting might be due to the fact that a signicant proportion of HPs did not know about the existence of a PEP service and were unaware about whom to contact in the event of an occupational exposure. Other reasons include an underestimation of HIV transmission and an unwillingness to take anti-retroviral drugs, as has been noted in previous studies (7-12).

In the present study, majority of NSIs were reported by sta nurses, (42.9%), which is a similar result compared with previous studies (4, 6, 13-16). This incidence rate is high though compared with a study done by Jayanth et al. (17), where 28% of nurses had experienced NSIs. In the present study, it was revealed that students (11.4%) were found to have a higher incidence rate than doctors, probably due to their lack of awareness of occupational exposure to blood pathogens and lack of training on the use of personal protection equipment. Nursing assistants (16.3%) were also found to have a signicant proportion of NSIs, probably because they were not involved in awareness programs (18-21).

In the present study, majority of NSIs occurred in patient rooms (32.5%), which was consistent with the observations made by Guo et al. (22) (38%) but diers from results of other studies, where the highest percentage of NSIs were observed in the minor operation theater and emergency operation theater (18, 23). The present study reveals that the maximum number of NSIs occurred during the post-procedure work-up from used needles (64%) compared to the during procedure work-up (36%). In the post-procedural work-up, manipulation after use before disposal (22.4%) had the highest incidence rate, probably because of a lack of technical preparation, distraction, and working in a hurry. In our study, NSIs during recapping had an incidence rate of 9.7%, which is in concordance with a study conducted by Yoshikawa et al. (24). Despite the existence of universal precautions since 1987 to prevent NSIs due to the recapping of needles, the incidence rate of NSIs due to recapping remains high (66.3%) among HPs in India (25). In total, 2.4% of the NSIs occurred due to the needle piercing the disposal container, which underlines the need for puncture-proof disposal containers. The commonest device involved was the hypodermic needle (36.7%); this ning was similar to the observations made by Radha et al. (4) (44%) (18). Studies regarding the depth of injury are rarely reported in India. In the current study, majority of pricks were moderately deep (66.3%). Supercial injuries (23.8%) were found in only 23.2%.

Of the total of 949 cases, 32 (3.47%) were found to have NSIs

from HIV seropositive patients. These ndings were less when com-

pared to observations made by Kumakech et al. (26) in the UK, in which 8.93% were exposed to HIV through NSIs. This dierence in the incidence rate was probably due to the higher prevalence of HIV in western countries. In the present study, 84.4% of HIV exposures to NSIs comprised female HPs, with a mean age of 26.66.0 years, which is a similar result to that of the study conducted by McEvoy et al. (27), where 50% of the HPs were below 25 years of age. This may be due to the relative work inexperience of the sta. Sta nurses (62.5%) acquired the maximum exposure to HIV due to NSIs, which can be explained by the circumstances/procedures during which exposure would have occurred. Similar observations were made by Kumakech et al. (26) and McEvoy et al. (27), where 61% of sta nurses were exposed. In the present study, the incidence rate of NSIs among doctors was 15.6%, which is less compared to the study conducted by McEvoy et al. (27) (21%). The commonest device involved was the hypodermic needle (65.6%), for which no comparative study data could be obtained. The greatest number of HIV exposure due to NSIs occurred in the ICU (40.6%), similar to the observations made by Kumakech et al. (26), in which 46.8% occurred in medical and surgical wards. van der Maaten et al. (7) reported the highest incidence of NSIs in the obstetrics ward. Observations made in the UK and China, where physicians were not available around the clock and non- of anti-retroviral medications, had reported signicant underreporting and improper PEP delivery (7, 17).

The mean duration between initiating PEP and occupational injury was 2.8 h in the current study, but it was found to be 7.6 h in a previous study (28). This may be due to the availability of an ER physician 24 h a day and 7 days a week who could counsel HPs and prescribe anti-retroviral medications.

Among the 32 HPs who received NSIs from HIV seropositive patients, 28 were initiated on triple-drug therapy, which consisted of tenofovir 300 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and efavirenz 600 mg taken orally, once daily, 2 h after food at night for 30 days. Four HPs deferred due to the fear of side eects. All HPs at risk were asked undergo HIV ELISA on the day of receiving the NSI, followed by HIV-RNA PCR 2 weeks after receiving the NSI, and HIV ELISA during follow-up at 1 month and 6 months, respectively, and no seropositivity was reported.

Conclusion

The present study shows the high prevalence of NSIs among HPs, particularly among sta nurses. HPs have always been known to be at risk of contracting acquired infectious diseases. In light of new emerging communicable diseases with new or unknown pathogens as causative agents, the prevention of NSIs among HPs has acquired signicant value. Periodic health education campaigns should be promoted, and strict adherence to standard precautionary protocols should be made mandatory to prevent and minimize the incidence of NSIs among HPs. Periodic updates about PEP should also be made to raise awareness among HPs.

Ethics Committee Approval: Ethics committee approval was received for this study from the ethics committee of Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University.

Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.

Eurasian J Emerg Med 2016; 15: 73-7

Krishnan et al.

Needlestick Injuries Among Health Care Providers 77

Conict of Interest: No conict of interest was declared by the authors.

Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study has received no nancial support.

References

1. Prss-Ustn A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med 2005; 48: 48-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20230

Web End =[CrossRef ]

2. Tarantola A, Abiteboul D, Rachline A. Infection risks following accidental exposure to blood or body uids in health care workers: a review of pathogens transmitted in published cases. Am J Infect Control 2006; 34: 367-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.011

Web End =[CrossRef ]

3. Bryant J, Baxter L, Hird S. Non-occupational postexposure prophylaxis for HIV: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13: 1-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta13140

Web End =[CrossRef ]

4. Radha R, Khan A. Epidemiology of needle stick injuries among the healthcare workers of rural tertiary care hospital A cross sectional study. Nat J Community Med 2012; 3: 589-94.

5. Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, Srivastava PU, Marcus R, Abiteboul D, et al. A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1485-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711203372101

Web End =[CrossRef ]

6. Hashmi A. Prevalence of Needle-stick and Sharps Injuries among Health-care Workers, Najran, Saudi Arabia. Epidemiology: Open Access. 2012: 117. DOI:10.4172/2161-1165.1000117. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-1165.1000117

Web End =[CrossRef ]

7. van der Maaten GC, Nyirenda M, Beadsworth MJ, Chitani A, Allain T, van Oosterhout JJ. Post exposure prophylaxis of HIV transmission after occupational injuries in Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Blantyre, Malawi, 2003-2008. Malawi Med J 2010; 22: 15-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v22i1.55903

Web End =[CrossRef ]

8. Lin C, Li L, Wu Z, Wu S, Jia M. Occupational exposure to HIV among health care providers: A Qualitative study in Yunnan, China. J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care (Chic) 2008; 7: 35-41.

9. Gumodoka B, Favot I, Berege ZA, Dolmans WM. Occupational exposure to the risk of HIV infection among health care workers in Mwanza Region, United Republic of Tanzania. Bull. Bull World Health Organization. 1997;75:133140.

10. Abdel-Malek ZA, Kadekaro AL, Kavanagh RJ, Todorovic A, Koikov LN, McNulty JC, et al. Melanoma prevention strategy based on using tetrapeptide alpha-MSH analogs that protect human melanocytes from UV-induced DNA damage and cytotoxicity. FASEB J 2006; 20: 1561-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.05-5655fje

Web End =[CrossRef ]

11. Haiduven DJ, Simpkins SM, Phillips ES, Stevens DA. A survey of percutaneous/ mucocutaneous injury reporting in a public teaching hospital. Journal of Hosp Infect 1999; 41: 151-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6701(99)90053-1

Web End =[CrossRef ]

12. Sohn S, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA. Safety engineered device implementation: does it introduce bias in percutaneous injury reporting? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25: 532-5.

13. Falagas ME, Karydis I, Kostogiannou I. Percutaneous exposure incidents of the health care personnel in a newly founded tertiary hospital: a prospective study. PLoS One 2007; 2: e194.

14. Foley M. Update on needlestick and sharps injuries: the Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000. Am J Nurs 2004; 104: 96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000446-200408000-00049

Web End =[CrossRef ]

15. Tan L, Hawk JC, Sterling ML. Report of the Council on Scientic Aairs: preventing needlestick injuries in health care settings. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 929-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.7.929

Web End =[CrossRef ]

16. Katkuri S, Begum S. Occupational Exposure to Blood and Body Fluids Among Health Care Workers in Teaching Hospital, Hyderabad, India. J Pharm Biomed Sci 2015; 5: 95-9.

17. Jayanth ST, Kirupakaran H, Brahmadathan KN, Gnanaraj L, Kang G. Needle stick injuries in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Med Microbiol 2009; 27: 44-7.

18. Gilks CF, Wilkinson D. Reducing the risk of nosocomial HIV infection in British health worklers working overseas: role of postexposure prophylaxis. BMJ 1998; 316: 1158-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1158

Web End =[CrossRef ]

19. Reis JMB, Lamounier Filho A, Rampinelli CA, Soares ECS, Prado RS, Pedroso ERP. Training-related accidents during teacher-student-assistance activities of medical students. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 2004; 37: 405-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0037-86822004000500007

Web End =[CrossRef ]

20. Salzer HJ, Hoenigl M, Kessler HH, Stigler FL, Raggam RB, Rippel KE, et al. Lack of risk-awareness and reporting behavior towards HIV infection through needlestick injury among European medical students. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2011; 214: 407-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.05.002

Web End =[CrossRef ]

21. Sharma GK, Gilson MM, Nathan H, Makary MA. Needlestick injuries among medical students: incidence and implications. Acad Med 2009; 84: 1815-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181bf9e5f

Web End =[CrossRef ]

22. Guo YL, Shiao J, Chuang YC, Huang KY. Needlestick and sharps injuries among health-care workers in Taiwan. Epidemiol Infect 1999; 122: 259-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268899002186

Web End =[CrossRef ]

23. Souza-Borges FRF de, Ribeiro LA, Oliveira LCM. Occupational exposures to body uids and behaviors regarding their prevention and post-exposure among medical and nursing students at a Brazilian public university. Rev Inst Med Trop 2014; 56: 157-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0036-46652014000200012

Web End =[CrossRef ]

24. Yoshikawa T, Wada K, Lee JJ, Mitsuda T, Kidouchi K, Kurosu H, et al. Incidence rate of needlestick and sharps injuries in 67 Japanese hospitals: a national surveillance study. PLoS One 2013; 8: e77524.

25. Muralidhar S, Singh PK, Jain RK, Malhotra M, Bala M. Needle stick injuries among health care workers in a tertiary care hospital of India. Indian J Med Res 2010; 131: 405-10.

26. Kumakech E, Achora S, Mbchb FB. Occupational exposure to HIV: a conict situation for health workers. Int Nurs Rev 2011; 58: 454-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2011.00887.x

Web End =[CrossRef ]27. McEvoy M, Porter K, Mortimer P, Simmons N, Shanson D. Prospective study of clinical, laboratory, and ancillary sta with accidental exposures to blood or body uids from patients infected with HIV. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987; 294: 1595-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.294.6587.1595

Web End =[CrossRef ]

28. Chen M, Fox E, Rogers C. Post-exposure prophylaxis for human immunodeciency virus: knowledge and experience of junior doctors. Sex Transm Infect 2001; 77: 444-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sti.77.6.444

Web End =[CrossRef ]