×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Review paper

Epidemiological characteristics of accidental needle-stick injury among health care professionals in primary healthcare in Zenica

By
Suad Sivić Orcid logo ,
Suad Sivić
Contact Suad Sivić

Institute for Health and Food Safety Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Larisa Gavran ,
Larisa Gavran

Family Medicine Teaching Centre, Primary Health Care Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Aida Baručija ,
Aida Baručija

Primary Health Care Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Alma Alić
Alma Alić

Family Medicine Teaching Centre, Primary Health Care Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

Aim
To determine the extent and characteristics of incidental injuries, primarily by needles and other medically sharp instruments and to recommend preventative activities to health care professionals.
Methods
The survey was conducted among 200 healthcare and non-healthcare employees of the Primary Health Care Centre Zenica (48% of the total number of employees). Care workers were surveyed, and the sample was randomly selected in proportion to the number of employees in institutional departments. Respondents answered questions about gender and age, work experience and qualifications; the number and type of exposure to incidents in the past year, number of career incidents, number of reported incidents; information on the manner and cause of the incident.
Results
The sample consisted mainly of females, 153 (83.2%). An exposure to incident during their work was experienced by 128 (69.6%) respondents: needle-stick injury, 79 (42.9%), unforeseen patient response, 42 (22.8%), rush to perform the procedure, 34 (18,5%), and negligence, 18 (9.8%). The incidents most frequently occurred in gynaecology department (all respondents experienced an incident event), followed by department of family medicine, 47 (67%). The main reason for these incidents was rush to perform procedures, in 9 (12.5%). Of 128 experienced incident events, 21 (16.4%) were reported.
Conclusion
The low rate of reporting of exposure to incidents does not provide a realistic basis for risk assessment and preventive action. Primary task for improving safety of work processes at our setting will be to raise employee's awareness of the need to report exposure incidents.

References

1.
Who. Promoting Healthy Life. 3AD.
2.
Wong K, Davey R, Jr, Hewlett A, Kraft C, Mehta A, et al. Use of postexposure prophylaxis after occupational exposure to Zaire ebolavirus. Clin Infect Dis. 2016. p. 376–9.
3.
Mahfouz A, Abdelmoneim I, Khan M, Daffalla A, Diab M, Shaban H, et al. Injection safety at primary health care level in south-western Saudi Arabia. East Mediterr Health J. 2009. p. 443–50.
4.
Gopar-Nieto R, Juárez-Pérez C, Cabello-López A, Haro-García L, Aguilar-Madrid G. Overview of sharps injuries among health-care workers. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2015. p. 356–61.
5.
Wilburn S, Eijkemans G. Preventing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers: a WHO-ICN collaboration. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2004. p. 451–6.
6.
Hutin Y, Hauri A, Chiarello L, Stilwell C, Ghebrehiwet B, Garner T, et al. Best infection control practices for intradermal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular needle injections. Bull World Health Organ. 2003. p. 491–500.
7.
Balouchi A, Shahdadi H, Ahmadidarrehsima S. Rafiemanesh H. The frequency, causes and prevention of needlestick injuries in nurses of Kerman: a crosssectional study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015. p. 13–5.
8.
Al-Zoughool M, Shehri A, Z. Injury and infection in dental clinics: risk factors and prevention. Toxicol Ind Health. 2018. p. 609–19.
9.
Ngwa C, Ngoh E, Cumber S. Assessment of the knowledge, attitude and practice of health care workers in Fako Division on post exposure prophylaxis to blood borne viruses: a hospital based cross-sectional study. Pan Afr Med J. 2018. p. 108.
10.
Moloughney B. Transmission and postexposure management of bloodborne virus infections in the health care setting: where are we now? CMAJ. 2001. p. 445–51.
11.
Riđanović Z, Kerleta-Tuzović V, Novo A. Standards for family medicine teams. Sarajevo: Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health. 2014. p. 47.
12.
Jahan S. Epidemiology of needlestick injuries among health care workers in a secondary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2005. p. 233–8.
13.
Čivljak R. Sveučilište u Zagrebu. Medicinski fakultet. 2014.
14.
Rogowska-Szadkowska D, Stanisławowicz M, Chlabicz S. Risk of needle stick injuries in health care workers: bad habits (recapping needles) last long. Przegl Epidemiol. 2010. p. 293–5.
15.
Costigliola V, Frid A, Letondeur C, Strauss K. Needlestick injuries in European nurses in diabetes. Diabetes Metab. 2012. p. 9–14.
16.
Tosini W, Ciotti C, Goyer F, Lolom I, Hériteau L, Abiteboul F, et al. Needlestick injury rates according to different types of safety engineered devices: results of a French Multicenter Study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010. p. 402–7.
17.
Parantainen A, Verbeek J, Lavoie M, Pahwa M. Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff. Arch Prev Riesgos Labor. 2012. p. 142–3.
18.
Grimmond T. UK safety-engineered device use: changes since the 2013 sharps regulations. Occup Med (Lond). 2019. p. 352–8.

Citation

Authors retain copyright. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License

 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.