Top

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie

Published in:

01-05-2015 | Reports of Original Investigations

Safety-engineered intravenous catheter utilization among Canadian pediatric anesthesiologists

Authors: Kimmo Murto, MD, Sophie Breton, MD, Kelly-Ann Ramakko, BSc, Mary Aglipay, MSc, Rob Perverseff, MD, Gregory L. Bryson, MD

Published in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie | Issue 5/2015

Abstract

Introduction

Compared with other specialties, anesthesiologists are at increased risk of acquiring a blood-borne pathogen (BBP) through needle-stick injuries (NSIs). Safety-engineered intravenous catheters (SEICs) have been designed to reduce NSIs but have not been well received. Our objective was to determine SEIC usage by pediatric anesthesiologists, including availability, utilization, perceived utility, and sources of NSI before and after legislation mandating their use in Canada.

Methods

After Ethics Committee approval, we conducted two electronic surveys of Canadian pediatric anesthesiologists (CPAs) based in tertiary care settings. Survey responses from May through August 2012 and June through September 2006 were considered. In addition to SEIC use and perceived utility, respondents described factors influencing SEIC adoption and workplace NSIs. Standard metrics of survey validity and reliability were employed.

Results

Completed questionnaires were returned by 154 (69%) and 124 (53%) respondents in 2012 and 2006, respectively, representing 15 of 16 Canadian pediatric tertiary care centres. Reported SEIC availability increased in hospitals (82% vs 98%; difference in proportion 16%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9 to 24%; P < 0.001) and in operating rooms (62% vs 86%; difference in proportion 24%, 95% CI: 13 to 34%; P < 0.001) Respondents’ report of “routine” personal use of SEICs increased from 43 of 76 (56%) to 112 of 132 (85%) (difference in proportion 29%, 95% CI: 16 to 41%; P < 0.001). Attitudes concerning perceived utility of SEICs remained unchanged and evenly split between respondents. “Awkward handling” remained the primary reason for non-use. In all, 71 (48%) and 60 (48%) respondents reported recent contaminated NSIs in 2012 and 2006, respectively. The majority were related to a needle on a disposable syringe.

Discussion

Despite only moderate perceived utility, SEIC uptake among CPAs is high. However, NSIs remain common. Several opportunities to reduce the risk for work-related BBP transmission among CPAs were evident.

Available only for authorised users

Phillips EK, Conaway M, Parker G, Perry J, Jagger J. Issues in understanding the impact of the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act on hospital sharps injuries. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34: 935-9.CrossRefPubMed

Adams D, Elliott TS. Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study. J Hosp Infect 2006; 64: 50-5.CrossRefPubMed

Mendelson MH, Short LJ, Schechter CB, et al. Study of a needleless intermittent intravenous-access system for peripheral infusions: analysis of staff, patient, and institutional outcomes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998; 19: 401-6.CrossRefPubMed

Hanmore E, Maclaine G, Garin F, Alonso A, Leroy N, Ruff L. Economic benefits of safety-engineered sharp devices in Belgium - a budget impact model. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 489.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Elder A, Paterson C. Sharps injuries in UK health care: a review of injury rates, viral transmission and potential efficacy of safety devices. Occup Med (Lond) 2006; 56: 566-74.CrossRef

Lamontagne F, Abiteboul D, Lolom I, et al. Role of safety-engineered devices in preventing needlestick injuries in 32 French hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28: 18-23.CrossRefPubMed

Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian Needle Stick Surveillance Network: Analysis of Occupational Exposures to Blood, Body Fluids and Bloodborne Pathogens (1 January 2008 to 30 June 2012), Final Program Report. Centre for Communicable Diseases and Infection Control, Public Health Agency of Canada, 2012. Available from URL: http://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/aspc-phac/HP40-88-2013-eng.pdf (accessed December 2014).

International Healthcare Worker Safety Center, University of Virginia. 2011 EPINet Report: Needlestick and Sharp-Object Injuries. Available from URL: www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/pub/epinet/EPINet2011-NeedlestickRpt.pdf (accessed December 2014).

Berry AJ, Greene ES. The risk of needlestick injuries and needlestick-transmitted diseases in the practice of anesthesiology. Anesthesiology 1992; 77: 1007-21.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Jagger J, Perry J, Gomaa A, Phillips EK. The impact of U.S. policies to protect healthcare workers from bloodborne pathogens: the critical role of safety-engineered devices. J Infect Public Health 2008; 1: 62-71.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Welc CM, Nassiry A, Elam K, et al. Continued non-compliance with the American College of Surgeons recommendations to decrease infectious exposure in the operating room: why? Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2013; 14: 288-92.CrossRef

12.

Cote CJ, Roth AG, Wheeler M, et al. Traditional versus new needle retractable i.v. catheters in children: are they really safer and whom are they protecting? Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 387-91.CrossRefPubMed

13.

College of Surgeons Committee on Perioperative Care. Statement on sharps safety. Bull Am Coll Surg 2007; 92: 34-7.

14.

Tait AR, Tuttle DB. Prevention of occupational transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus among anesthesiologists: a survey of anesthesiology practice. Anesth Analg 1994; 79: 623-8.PubMed

15.

Greene ES, Berry AJ, Arnold WP 3rd, Jagger J. Percutaneous injuries in anesthesia personnel. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 273-8.PubMed

16.

Greene ES, Berry AJ, Jagger J, et al. Multicenter study of contaminated percutaneous injuries in anesthesia personnel. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 1362-72.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ontario Nurses’ Association. ONA Needlestick/Sharps Safety and Prevention Handbook - 2002. Available from URL: http://www.ona.org/health_safety/needle_safety.html (accessed December 2014).

18.

Jagger J, Bentley MB. Injuries from vascular access devices: high risk and preventable. Collaborative EPINet Surveillance Group. J Intraven Nurs 1997; 20: S33-9.PubMed

19.

Jagger J, Hunt EH, Brand-Elnaggar J, Pearson RD. Rates of needle-stick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 284-8.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Jagger J. Reducing occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens: where do we stand a decade later? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17: 573-5.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Asch DA, Jedrzwieski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1129-36.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res 2001; 35: 1347-55.PubMedCentralPubMed

23.

Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys – The Tailored Design Method 2^nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2000: 150-94.

24.

Landsman I. Let’s be blunt…we still may need sharps. Society for Pediatric Anesthesia. SPA News 2008; 21: 1 & 4.

25.

Mychaskiw G 2nd, Mayhew JF. Recommended usage technique for the Insyte Autoguard IV catheter increases risk of blood aerosolization. Paediatr Anaesth 2009; 19: 63-4.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Tosini W, Ciotti C, Goyer 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; 31: 402-7.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, et al. A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in healthcare workers after percutaneous exposure. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Needlestick Surveillance Group. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1485-90.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Saghafi L, Raselli P, Francillon C, Francioli P. Exposure to blood during various procedures: results of two surveys before and after implementation of universal precautions. Am J Infect Control 1992; 20: 53-7.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Manns MP, Wedemeyer H, Meyer S, et al.; German Society for Alimentary Metabolic Disorders; Hepatitis Competence Network. Diagnosis, progression and therapy of hepatitis-B-virus infection—results of an evidenced based consensus conference of the German Society for Alimentary Metabolic Disorders and in cooperation with the Hepatitis Competence Network (German). Z Gastroenterol 2004; 42: 677-8.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Jackson SH, Cheung EC. Hepatitis B and hepatitis C: occupational considerations for the anesthesiologist. Anesthesiol Clin North America 2004; 22: 357-77.PubMed

31.

Holland CA, Ma Y, Moscicki B, Durako SJ, Levin L, Wilson CM. Seroprevalence and risk factors of hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and human cytomegalovirus among HIV-infected and high-risk uninfected adolescents: findings of the REACH Study. Adolescent Medicine HIV/AIDS Research Network. Sex Transm Dis 2000; 27: 296-303.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Sohn AH, Hazra R. The changing epidemiology of the global paediatric HIV epidemic: keeping track of perinatally HIV-infected adolescents. J Int AIDS Soc 2013; 18: 18555.

33.

Rosenberg AD, Bernstein DB, Bernstein RL, Skovron ML, Ramanathan S, Turndorf H. Accidental needlesticks: do anesthesiologists practice proper infection control precautions? Am J Anesthesiol 1995; 22: 125-32.PubMed

34.

Strauss KW, Onia R, Van Zundert AA. Peripheral intravenous catheter use in Europe: towards the use of safety devices. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2008; 52: 798-804.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006; 81: 1159-71.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Ruiz-Sternberg A, Velez-Van-Meerbeke A, Ruiz-Sternberg J. Clinical acceptability and ease of use of a safety IV catheter system. Curr Med Res Opin 2012; 28: 1381-7.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Prunet B, Meaudre E, Montcriol A, et al. A prospective randomized trial of two safety peripheral intravenous catheters. Anesth Analg 2008; 107: 155-8.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Burns KE, Duffet M, Kho ME, et al. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. CMAJ 2008; 179: 245-52.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

39.

Stringer B, Haines T. Ongoing use of conventional devices and safety device activation rates in hospitals in Ontario, Canada. J Occup Environ Hyg 2011; 8: 154-60.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Makary MA, Al-Attar A, Holzmueller CG, et al. Needlestick injuries among surgeons in training. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 2693-9.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Safety-engineered intravenous catheter utilization among Canadian pediatric anesthesiologists
Authors: Kimmo Murto, MD
Sophie Breton, MD
Kelly-Ann Ramakko, BSc
Mary Aglipay, MSc
Rob Perverseff, MD
Gregory L. Bryson, MD
Publication date: 01-05-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0832-610X
Electronic ISSN: 1496-8975
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-015-0351-x

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Safety-engineered intravenous catheter utilization among Canadian pediatric anesthesiologists

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

Teaching blind nasal intubation in Rwanda

Increased postoperative day one discharges after implementation of a hysterectomy enhanced recovery pathway: a retrospective cohort study

Alternatives to heparin and protamine anticoagulation for cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiac surgery

Engineering solutions for safety: not always as simple as they seem

The impact of advanced maternal age on peripartum thromboelastographic coagulation profiles: a prospective observational exploratory study

Miller’s Anesthesia, Eighth Edition