4. European Directives 89/391 and 2000/54
on the Prevention of Sharps Injuries in
the Healthcare Sector
Each MS has until May 2013 to comply,
Implementing measures to prevent potentially fatal
injuries including:
⢠Medical devices incorporating safety engineered
mechanisms,
⢠Effective training,
⢠Effective working procedures, including disposal of
used sharps,
⢠Well resourced and organised workforce,
⢠Local, National and Europe wide reporting
mechanisms,
⢠A ban on recapping.
5. EU Sharps Directive
ďŹ March 2010, EU Employment & Social Affairs Ministers
adopted a Directive to prevent injuries and blood borne
infections to hospital and healthcare workers from sharp
objects, such as needle sticks.
ďŹ Council Directive 2010/32/EU of 10th May 2010 was
published in the Official Journal of the European Union,
No. L134 of 1 June 2010, p66-72. Member States,
including Ireland have 3 years to transpose it into
national legislation (by May 2013).
6. The aim of the Directive is to:
ďŹ Achieve the safest possible working
environment;
ďŹ Prevent workers' injuries caused by medical
sharps (including needle sticks);
ďŹ Protect workers at risk;
ďŹ Set up an integrated approach establishing
policies in risk assessment, risk prevention,
training, information, awareness raising and
monitoring;
ďŹ Put in place response and follow up procedures;
7. Under-reporting
ďŹ NSI under-reported across Europe, (Doebbeling et al, 2003).
ďŹ EU legislators estimate one million needlestick injuries per
year to HCWs.
ďŹ 75% under-reporting in Germany (Wicker et al, 2008),
ďŹ 60% in Spain (Parra-Ruiz et al, 2004).
ďŹ UK between 10% (RCN, 2008) and 90% (Au E et al, 2008;
Thomas et al, 2009), depending on the role of the HCW.
ďŹ France, Netherlands and rest of EU the range of under-reporting
at between 40% and 75% (Wilburn et al, 2005).
ďŹ UK, Estimated under-reporting of between 29-61%, Roy E, Robillard P.
Underreporting of accidental exposures to blood and other body fluids in healthcare settings: an alarming situation. Adv Expo Prev 1995;1:11.
9. Pattern of NSI/OBEs
âI keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Whoâ.
Rudyard Kipling, the Elephantâs child 1902
10. When ?
ďŹ According to data from the Health Protection Agency
(HPA, 2008) and from the USA (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2010), sharps injuries occur:
ďŹ during use
ďŹ after use, before disposal
ďŹ between steps in procedures
ďŹ during disposal
ďŹ while re-sheathing or recapping a needle.
20. Preventable injuries GAO U.S.(1)
S. Campbell, L. Chiarello, P. Srivastava, D. Cardo, and The NaSH Surveillance Group, âPreventability of Needlestick Injuries to HCWs
in the National Surveillance System for Healthcare Workers,â Abstracts--4th Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial &
Healthcare-Associated Infections (Atlanta, Ga.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, July 2000),
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/NASH/4thabstracts.htm - 7
22. Preventable injuries (3)
ďŹ A Scottish study concluded 61% of venepuncture-
related injuries were âprobablyâ preventable by
safety device use and 21% were âdefinitelyâ
preventable
Cullen BL, Genasi F, Symington I et al. Potential for reported NSI prevention among HCWs through safety
device usage and improvement of guideline adherence: expert panel assessment. J Hosp Infect
2006;63:445â451.
ďŹ Sample sizes for a device with an injury rate of
5/100 000 usages (e.g. syringe devices) to achieve
80% power at 5% significance level is one million
devices to show a 50% reduction in injuries
23. Cost
ďŹ PCE estimated to cost between ÂŁ13k- ÂŁ880k for
an injury resulting in seroconversion of a BBV
(National Health Services for Scotland, 2001).
ďŹ Annual cost for NSI management is estimated
at ÂŁ500k per UK NHS trust,
ďŹ C.f. cost of preventive safety-engineered
devices estimated at ÂŁ136k per NHS trust per
year - ~ quarter the cost of treating injuries.
(Memorandum submitted by the Safer Needle Network to Select Committee on Public
Accounts, 2 May 2003).
24. The risk of infection depends on a
number of factors.
ďŹ They include:
ďŹ the depth of the injury
ďŹ the type of sharp used (hollow bore needles
are higher risk although subcutaneous
needles also present a risk)
ďŹ whether the device was previously in the
patientâs vein or artery
ďŹ how infectious the source patient is at the
time of the injury.
25. Risk in relation to Exposure
ďŹ The risk of infection by a contaminated
needle is estimated as follows (HPA,
2008):
ďŹ one in three for hepatitis B (6-30%)
ďŹ one in 30 for hepatitis C (0.5-2%)
ďŹ one in 300 for HIV (0.3%)
26. NSI among Surgeons in Training
ďŹ NEJM 2007/17 USA Centres
ďŹ 582/699 respondents had had needle-stick injuries,
ďŹ After 5yrs 99% had had NSI (53% high risk),
ďŹ 51% not reported (16% high risk),
ďŹ 72% in OT, most self inflicted with solid needle
during suturing.
ďŹ Risk of HIV or HCW seroconversion 1.43/yr in UK,
or 0.0086/1000 beds/yr. (Elder A et al, Occ Med 2006;56:566-574),
ďŹ For acute health organisation of 1500 beds, this = 1
seroconversion /78 years.
27. NI surgeons
ďŹ 52/70 (75%) surgeons and trainees replied.
ďŹ 42/52 (81%) suffered at least 1 NSI,
ďŹ 4/52 (8%) reporting > 20 NSIs.
ďŹ 8/52 (19%) reported all NSI to OHS with no significant
difference between consultants and trainees (P = 0.2).
ďŹ 12 (23%) felt that reporting of injuries helped to reduce
transmission rates.
ďŹ 18 (35%) said NSI caused them moderate-significant anxiety.
ďŹ Top reasons for not reporting were (0â4).
ďŹ (a) Process too time consuming (2.7),
ďŹ (b) transmission risk very low (2.6),
ďŹ (c) do not want to disrupt operating list (2.0),
ďŹ (d) post exposure prophylaxis ineffective (1.3)
Kennedy R et al, Irish Journal of Medical Science September 2009, Volume 178, Issue 3, pp 297-299
28. Risk Control Hierarchy
1. Elimination â eliminating unnecessary sharps use with
changes in practice;
2. Engineering Controls - medical devices incorporating safety-
engineered mechanisms;
3. Safe Systems of Work â specifying safe procedures for using
and disposing of sharp instruments and contaminated waste,
Recapping banned, information, instruction and training.
4. PPE - the use of Personal Protective Equipment (gloves,
masks, gowns, etc);
5. Vaccination â for hepatitis B, in accordance with national law
and/or practice of the Member State.
6. Reporting & Surveillance systems standardised.
29. Injury Prevention Safer Devices
ďŹ By definition a safer device incorporates
engineering controls to prevent OBE, before,
during, or after use through built in safety
features. The term âsafer deviceâ is broad and
includes many different type of instrument.
ďŹ Think unguarded piece of machinery!
Conventional needles are inherently unsafe by
design and should be eliminated where possible.
(Unison 2002)
30. Safety Features
Devices may be âŚ
ďŹ Active;
ďŹ Passive;
ďŹ Passive features enhance safety design
and are more likely to have a greater
impact on prevention. Further benefits
include reduction in âdown-stream
injury.
31. Characteristics; Safety Features
ďŹ Provide a barrier between hands and Sharp
ďŹ Allow/require the workers hand to remain behind
the sharp at all times
ďŹ Be integral to the device, not an accessory
ďŹ Be in effect before disassembly, and remain in
effect after disposal
ďŹ Be simple and self evident to operate, and
require little training.
(US FDA)
33. Intervention
Intervention Review
âBlunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure
incidents in surgical staffâ
Annika Parantainen1,*,
Jos H Verbeek2,
Marie-Claude Lavoie3,
Manisha Pahwa4
Editorial Group: Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group
Published Online: 9 NOV 2011
Assessed as up-to-date: 30 APR 2011
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009170.pub2
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1
4651858.CD009170.pub2/pdf/abstract
35. Interventions HSE DNE
ďŹ A safer lancet was introduced January 2001,
ďŹThe proportion of injuries relating to lancets reduced
from 33% to 3-4%.
Reduction is sustained (4% 2011).
Noone P, Carroll A, Safer devices preventing occupational blood and body fluid exposures Occup Med (Lond). 2005 Aug;55(5):404-5.
ďŹ Single use, safety shielded phlebotomy system
introduced in March 2006.
ďŹ The proportion of injuries from venesection reduced from
an average of 12.5% in previous 4 years to 6-7%.
Reduction is sustained (7% 2011)
37. Butterfly
Injury rates: 8% of injuries sustained from winged
steel needles used for sub-cut infusion, and
venous access.
Audit: In Cavan the general ward areas report use
of non safety engineered winged steel needles
(Butterfly). Monaghan had a safety system in
use in Endoscopy.
.
KPI: Introduction of appropriate safety devices to
eliminate associated injuries.
Mary Hotaling, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations February 2009 Volume 35 Number 2 101
38. Other opportunity areas..
ďŹ Blood culture: Safety vacuum set.
ďŹ Blood Gas
ďŹ Prefilled injectables
ďŹ IM injection.
ďŹ Specialist areas
ď OR
ď Maternity
ď Dialysis
39. Summary
New Legislative requirements:
ďŹ Medical devices incorporating safety
engineered mechanisms
⢠Effective training
⢠Effective working procedures, including
disposal of used sharps
⢠Well resourced and organised workforce
⢠Local, National and Europe wide reporting
mechanisms
⢠A ban on recapping