Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/12929
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCullen, B L-
dc.contributor.authorGenasi, Fiona-
dc.contributor.authorSymington, Ian S-
dc.contributor.authorBagg, Jeremy J-
dc.contributor.authorMcCreaddie, May-
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Avril-
dc.contributor.authorHenry, Matthew J-
dc.contributor.authorHutchinson, Sharon J-
dc.contributor.authorGoldberg, David J-
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-13T20:13:02Z-
dc.date.issued2006-08-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/12929-
dc.description.abstractA prospective survey was conducted over six months in order to estimate the proportion of reported occupational needlestick injuries sustained by National Health Service (NHS) Scotland staff that could have been prevented through either safety device introduction, improved guideline adherence, guideline revision or a combination of these. This survey involved the administration of a standard proforma to healthcare workers followed by an expert panel assessment. All acute and primary care NHS Scotland trusts, the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service were included. Proforma and expert panel assessment data were available for 64% of injuries (952/1497) reported by healthcare staff. These injuries were all percutaneous. The expert panel concluded that: 56% of all injuries and 80% of venepuncture/injection administration injuries would probably/definitely have been prevented through safety device usage, 52% of all injuries and 56% of venepuncture/injection administration injuries would probably/definitely have been prevented through guideline adherence and 72% of all injuries and 88% of venepuncture/injection administration injuries would probably/definitely have been prevented through either intervention. Multi-factorial analysis indicated that injuries sustained through venepuncture/injection administration were significantly more likely to be prevented through safety device usage [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 5.09, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.11-8.31 and adjusted OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.64-4.45, respectively], and significantly less likely to be prevented through guideline adherence (adjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.60 and adjusted OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.78, respectively). Injuries sustained after completing procedures were significantly more likely to be prevented through safety device usage and guideline adherence. The study's findings support the need for improvements to staff's adherence to needlestick injury guidelines and appropriate implementation of safety devices for venepuncture and injection administration.en_UK
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherWB Saunders for the Hospital Infection Society-
dc.relationCullen BL, Genasi F, Symington IS, Bagg JJ, McCreaddie M, Taylor A, Henry MJ, Hutchinson SJ & Goldberg DJ (2006) Potential for reported needlestick injury prevention among healthcare workers through safety device usage and improvement of guideline adherence: expert panel assessment, Journal of Hospital Infection, 63 (4), pp. 445-451.-
dc.rightsThe publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.-
dc.subjectNeedlestick injuriesen_UK
dc.subjectHealthcare workersen_UK
dc.subjectPreventionen_UK
dc.subjectSafety devicesen_UK
dc.subjectGuideline adherenceen_UK
dc.subject.lcshNursing-
dc.subject.lcshHealth and safety-
dc.subject.lcshBackache Prevention-
dc.subject.lcshIndustrial safety.-
dc.titlePotential for reported needlestick injury prevention among healthcare workers through safety device usage and improvement of guideline adherence: expert panel assessmenten_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2999-12-31T00:00:00Z-
dc.rights.embargoreasonThe publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository therefore there is an embargo on the full text of the work.-
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2006.04.008-
dc.citation.jtitleJournal of Hospital Infection-
dc.citation.issn0195-6701-
dc.citation.volume63-
dc.citation.issue4-
dc.citation.spage445-
dc.citation.epage451-
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublished-
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereed-
dc.type.statusPublisher version (final published refereed version)-
dc.author.emailmay.mccreaddie@stir.ac.uk-
dc.contributor.affiliationNHS Health Protection Scotland-
dc.contributor.affiliationNHS Health Protection Scotland-
dc.contributor.affiliationNorth Glasgow NHS Occupational Health Service-
dc.contributor.affiliationGlasgow Dental Hospital and School-
dc.contributor.affiliationHS Research - Stirling-
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Paisley-
dc.contributor.affiliationNHS Health Protection Scotland-
dc.contributor.affiliationNHS Health Protection Scotland-
dc.contributor.affiliationNHS Health Protection Scotland-
dc.rights.embargoterms2999-12-31-
dc.rights.embargoliftdate2999-12-31-
dc.identifier.isi000239541400015-
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
McCreaddie_2006_Potential_for_reported_needlestick _njury.pdf150.69 kBAdobe PDFUnder Permanent Embargo    Request a copy


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.