Content area
Full text
Ford J, Phillips P (2011) An evaluation of sharp safety hypodermic needle devices. Nursing Standard. 25, 35, 39-44. Date of acceptance: May 5 2010.
Summary
Sharps injury and exposure to blood-borne viruses is an occupational hazard for healthcare professionals. This article describes an evaluation of three sharp safety hypodermic needle devices in six hospitals in Wales. User acceptability and performance was assessed.
Keywords
Equipment and supplies, health and safety, sharps injuries
These keywords are based on subject headings from the British Nursing Index. All articles are subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software. For author and research article guidelines visit the Nursing Standard home page at www.nursing-standard.co.uk. For related articles visit our online archive and search using the keywords.
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE to blood-borne viruses has become an increasing concern in recent years. It has been estimated that approximately 100,000 sharps injuries occur in the NHS annually (Unison 2000). A sharps injury from a blood-contaminated needle can put healthcare staff at risk of exposure to viruses such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In the UK between 1997 and 2007, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) (2008) received reports of 14 occupationally acquired hepatitis C seroconversions and five HIV seroconversions.
These concerns have led to the introduction of a variety of sharp safety devices. Such devices have features designed to protect the user from a sharps injury. While there is some evidence from the United States (US) that sharp safety devices can reduce needlestick injury rates (Jagger 2008), there is also evidence that some devices are unreliable (Ford and Phillips 2008). In one US report, a number of different models of retractable needle failed to retract fully on activation (ECRI Institute 2003). It has also been reported that some sharp safety devices have caused injury to users (Paterson and Elder 2005).
The US General Accounting Office (2000) notes that sharp safety devices have limitations and states that those that have been assessed 'vary considerably in their clinical efficacy and in their effectiveness in reducing rates of injuries'.
Background to the evaluation
Little work has been carried out to establish whether sharp safety devices are acceptable alternatives to conventional devices. Discussions with various professional groups in NHS...