Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Rami A. Ballout, Batoul Diab, Alain C. Harb, Rami Tarabay, Selma Khamassi, Elie A. Akl

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The acquisition of needle-stick injuries (NSI) in a healthcare setting poses an occupational hazard of transmitting blood-borne pathogens from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs). The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence about the efficacy and safety of using safety-engineered intravenous devices and safety-engineered phlebotomy devices by HCWs.

Methods

We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing safety-engineered devices to conventional/standard devices that lack safety features for delivering intravenous injections and/or for blood-withdrawal procedures (phlebotomy). The outcomes of interest included NSI rates, and blood-borne infections rates among HCWs and patients. We conducted an extensive literature search strategy using the OVID interface in October 2013. We followed the standard methods for study selection and data abstraction. When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We used the GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence by outcome.

Results

We identified twenty-two eligible studies: Twelve assessed safety-engineered devices for intravenous procedures, five for phlebotomy procedures, and five for both. Twenty-one of those studies were observational while one was a randomized trial. All studies assessed the reduction in NSIs among HCWs. For safety-engineered intravenous devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.28 [0.13, 0.59] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.34 [0.08,1.49] (low quality evidence). For safety-engineered phlebotomy devices, the pooled relative risk for NSI per HCW was 0.57 [0.38, 0.84] (moderate quality evidence). The pooled relative risk for NSI per device used or procedure performed was 0.53 [0.43,0.65] (moderate quality evidence). We identified no studies assessing the outcome of blood-borne infections among healthcare workers or patients.

Conclusion

There is moderate-quality evidence that the use of safety-engineered devices in intravenous injections and infusions, and phlebotomy (blood-drawing) procedures reduces NSI rates of HCWs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Vaughan ARaP. The World Health Report 2002. In: Campanini B, ed. Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life: World Health Organization; 2002. Vaughan ARaP. The World Health Report 2002. In: Campanini B, ed. Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life: World Health Organization; 2002.
3.
go back to reference Panlilio AL, Orelien JG, Srivastava PU, et al. Estimate of the annual number of percutaneous injuries among hospital-based healthcare workers in the United States, 1997-1998. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(7):556–62.CrossRefPubMed Panlilio AL, Orelien JG, Srivastava PU, et al. Estimate of the annual number of percutaneous injuries among hospital-based healthcare workers in the United States, 1997-1998. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(7):556–62.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference McCormick RD, Maki DG. Epidemiology of needle-stick injuries in hospital personnel. Am J Med. 1981;70(4):928–32.CrossRefPubMed McCormick RD, Maki DG. Epidemiology of needle-stick injuries in hospital personnel. Am J Med. 1981;70(4):928–32.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during phlebotomy procedures -- Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46(2):21–5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during phlebotomy procedures -- Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46(2):21–5.
6.
go back to reference Mendelson M, Solomon R, Shekletski E, et al. Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during phlebotomy procedures - Minneapolis-St Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. J Am Med Assoc. 1997;277(6):449–50.CrossRef Mendelson M, Solomon R, Shekletski E, et al. Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during phlebotomy procedures - Minneapolis-St Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. J Am Med Assoc. 1997;277(6):449–50.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference McCormick RD, Meisch MG, Ircink FG, et al. Epidemiology of hospital sharps injuries: a 14-year prospective study in the pre-AIDS and AIDS eras. Am J Med. 1991;91(3B):301S–7.CrossRefPubMed McCormick RD, Meisch MG, Ircink FG, et al. Epidemiology of hospital sharps injuries: a 14-year prospective study in the pre-AIDS and AIDS eras. Am J Med. 1991;91(3B):301S–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, et al. A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(21):1485–90.CrossRefPubMed Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, et al. A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(21):1485–90.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Jagger JPaJ. Reducing sharps injury risk in intensive care settings ADVANCES IN EXPOSURE PREVENTION: International Healthcare Worker Safety Center, University of Virginia; 2005. Jagger JPaJ. Reducing sharps injury risk in intensive care settings ADVANCES IN EXPOSURE PREVENTION: International Healthcare Worker Safety Center, University of Virginia; 2005.
10.
go back to reference Vincent A. 12 self-care steps: your profession is a demanding one. Taking care of yourself is necessary. Massage Ther J. 2010;49(1):67–79. Vincent A. 12 self-care steps: your profession is a demanding one. Taking care of yourself is necessary. Massage Ther J. 2010;49(1):67–79.
11.
go back to reference Alarcon W. Preventing Needlesticks in Surgical Personnel NIOSH Science Blog: Safer Healthier Workers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008. Alarcon W. Preventing Needlesticks in Surgical Personnel NIOSH Science Blog: Safer Healthier Workers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008.
13.
go back to reference Pruss-Ustun A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(6):482–90.CrossRefPubMed Pruss-Ustun A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(6):482–90.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Beekmann SE, Henderson DK. Protection of healthcare workers from bloodborne pathogens. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2005;18(4):331–6.CrossRefPubMed Beekmann SE, Henderson DK. Protection of healthcare workers from bloodborne pathogens. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2005;18(4):331–6.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Gartner K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. J Healthc Mater Manage. 1993;11(8):44–6. 48-9.PubMed Gartner K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. J Healthc Mater Manage. 1993;11(8):44–6. 48-9.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Heinrich J. Occupational Safety: Selected Cost and Benefit Implications of Needlestick Prevention Devices for Hospitals. In: Stark P, editor. United States General Accounting Office. 2000. Heinrich J. Occupational Safety: Selected Cost and Benefit Implications of Needlestick Prevention Devices for Hospitals. In: Stark P, editor. United States General Accounting Office. 2000.
19.
go back to reference Harb AC, Tarabay R, Diab B, et al. Safety engineered injection devices for intramuscular, subcutaneous and intradermal injections in healthcare delivery settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nurs. 2015;14:71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Harb AC, Tarabay R, Diab B, et al. Safety engineered injection devices for intramuscular, subcutaneous and intradermal injections in healthcare delivery settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nurs. 2015;14:71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, et al. A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Needlestick Surveillance Group. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(21):1485–90.CrossRefPubMed Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, et al. A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Needlestick Surveillance Group. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(21):1485–90.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Jagger J, Hunt EH, Brand-Elnaggar J, et al. Rates of needle-stick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(5):284–8.CrossRefPubMed Jagger J, Hunt EH, Brand-Elnaggar J, et al. Rates of needle-stick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(5):284–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Elie Akl RB, Batoul D, Alain H, Selma K, Rami T. Sharp injury prevention syringes. 10 March 2014 ed. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews: University of York- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2014. Elie Akl RB, Batoul D, Alain H, Selma K, Rami T. Sharp injury prevention syringes. 10 March 2014 ed. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews: University of York- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2014.
23.
go back to reference Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference 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(4):402–7.CrossRefPubMed 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(4):402–7.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407–15.CrossRefPubMed Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407–15.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Adams D, Elliott TS. Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study. J Hosp Infect. 2006;64(1):50–5.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(1):50–5.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Guyatt G OA, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schünemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Elsevier; 2011. Guyatt G OA, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schünemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Elsevier; 2011.
28.
go back to reference Beason R, Bourguignon J, Fowler D, et al. Evaluation of a needle-free intravenous access system. J Intraven Nurs. 1992;15(1):11–6.PubMed Beason R, Bourguignon J, Fowler D, et al. Evaluation of a needle-free intravenous access system. J Intraven Nurs. 1992;15(1):11–6.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Derevnuk A, Finkelstein-Blond L, Wallach F. Reduction of percutaneous injuries in healthcare workers: Use of a retractable winged steel needle. Am J Infect Control. 2013;1:S80–1.CrossRef Derevnuk A, Finkelstein-Blond L, Wallach F. Reduction of percutaneous injuries in healthcare workers: Use of a retractable winged steel needle. Am J Infect Control. 2013;1:S80–1.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Ippolito G, De Carli G, Puro V, et al. Device-specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian health care workers. JAMA. 1994;272(8):607–10.CrossRefPubMed Ippolito G, De Carli G, Puro V, et al. Device-specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian health care workers. JAMA. 1994;272(8):607–10.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Kempen PM. Assessing blunt cannulae as replacements for hypodermic needles during intravenous therapy: safety and utility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18(3):169–74.CrossRefPubMed Kempen PM. Assessing blunt cannulae as replacements for hypodermic needles during intravenous therapy: safety and utility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18(3):169–74.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Shimatani M, Matsui Y, Yano K. Comparison of the needlstick injuries due to active and passive design safety intravenous catheters. American Journal of Infection Control Conference: 38th Annual Educational Conference and International Meeting of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, APIC 2011;39(5). Shimatani M, Matsui Y, Yano K. Comparison of the needlstick injuries due to active and passive design safety intravenous catheters. American Journal of Infection Control Conference: 38th Annual Educational Conference and International Meeting of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, APIC 2011;39(5).
33.
go back to reference Watters J, MacCallum R, Maurice S, et al. Safelon--a new device to reduce needle-stick injuries during intravenous cannulation. Anaesthesia. 1995;50(6):529–31.CrossRefPubMed Watters J, MacCallum R, Maurice S, et al. Safelon--a new device to reduce needle-stick injuries during intravenous cannulation. Anaesthesia. 1995;50(6):529–31.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Needlestick-prevention devices. Focus on blood collection devices and catheters. Health Devices. 1998;27(6):184-232. Pubmed PMID: 9669183 Needlestick-prevention devices. Focus on blood collection devices and catheters. Health Devices. 1998;27(6):184-232. Pubmed PMID: 9669183
35.
go back to reference Sossai D, Puro V, Chiappatoli L, et al. Using an intravenous catheter system to prevent needlestick injury. Nurs Stand. 2010;24(29):42–6.CrossRefPubMed Sossai D, Puro V, Chiappatoli L, et al. Using an intravenous catheter system to prevent needlestick injury. Nurs Stand. 2010;24(29):42–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Dubois MC. Protection against the transmission of hematogenous diseases in a hospital milieu. A new device for venous puncture. [French] Protection contre la transmission des maladies hematogenes en milieu hospitalier. Un nouveau materiel de ponction veineuse. Cah Anesthesiol. 1991;39(8):549–50.PubMed Dubois MC. Protection against the transmission of hematogenous diseases in a hospital milieu. A new device for venous puncture. [French] Protection contre la transmission des maladies hematogenes en milieu hospitalier. Un nouveau materiel de ponction veineuse. Cah Anesthesiol. 1991;39(8):549–50.PubMed
37.
go back to reference Marini MA, Giangregorio M, Kraskinski JC. Complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Bloodborne Pathogens Standard: Implementing Needleless Systems and Intravenous Safety Devices. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2004;20(3):209–14.CrossRefPubMed Marini MA, Giangregorio M, Kraskinski JC. Complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Bloodborne Pathogens Standard: Implementing Needleless Systems and Intravenous Safety Devices. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2004;20(3):209–14.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Waclawski ER. Evaluation of potential reduction in blood and body fluid exposures by use of alternative instruments. Occup Med. 2004;54(8):567–9.CrossRef Waclawski ER. Evaluation of potential reduction in blood and body fluid exposures by use of alternative instruments. Occup Med. 2004;54(8):567–9.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference News & views. Safety devices reduce phlebotomy injuries… report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (MMWR. 1997;46:21-25). Laboratory Medicine 1997;28(5):293-93. News & views. Safety devices reduce phlebotomy injuries… report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (MMWR. 1997;46:21-25). Laboratory Medicine 1997;28(5):293-93.
40.
go back to reference Safety device evaluations produce efficacy data. Hospital Employee Health. 1997;16(4):40-43. Safety device evaluations produce efficacy data. Hospital Employee Health. 1997;16(4):40-43.
41.
go back to reference Bohony J. Fighting the needlestick battle without needles… needleless intravenous piggyback (IVPB) systems. Medsurg Nurs. 1993;2(6):469–76.PubMed Bohony J. Fighting the needlestick battle without needles… needleless intravenous piggyback (IVPB) systems. Medsurg Nurs. 1993;2(6):469–76.PubMed
42.
go back to reference Keuren MV, Cunningham C, Hackman B, et al. Impact of a needleless system (NLS) for connecting intravenous tubing on the incidence of needlestick injuries. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(2):110. Keuren MV, Cunningham C, Hackman B, et al. Impact of a needleless system (NLS) for connecting intravenous tubing on the incidence of needlestick injuries. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(2):110.
43.
go back to reference Buerke B, Puesken M, Mellmann A, et al. Automatic MDCT injectors: Hygiene and efficiency of disposable, prefilled, and multidosing roller pump systems in clinical routine. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(2):W226–32.CrossRef Buerke B, Puesken M, Mellmann A, et al. Automatic MDCT injectors: Hygiene and efficiency of disposable, prefilled, and multidosing roller pump systems in clinical routine. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(2):W226–32.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Casey AL, Elliott TS. The usability and acceptability of a needleless connector system. Br J Nurs. 2007;16(5):267–71.CrossRefPubMed Casey AL, Elliott TS. The usability and acceptability of a needleless connector system. Br J Nurs. 2007;16(5):267–71.CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Ihrig M, Cookson ST, Campbell K, et al. Evaluation of the acceptability of a needleless vascular-access system by nurses. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25(5):434–8.CrossRefPubMed Ihrig M, Cookson ST, Campbell K, et al. Evaluation of the acceptability of a needleless vascular-access system by nurses. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25(5):434–8.CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Sibbitt Jr WL. Integration of patient safety technologies into sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;42(5):446–55.CrossRef Sibbitt RR, Palmer DJ, Sibbitt Jr WL. Integration of patient safety technologies into sclerotherapy for varicose veins. Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;42(5):446–55.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Suzuki R, Kimura S, Shintani Y, et al. The efficacy of safety winged steel needles on needlestick injuries. Kansenshogaku zasshi. 2006;80(1):39–45. The Journal of the Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases.CrossRefPubMed Suzuki R, Kimura S, Shintani Y, et al. The efficacy of safety winged steel needles on needlestick injuries. Kansenshogaku zasshi. 2006;80(1):39–45. The Journal of the Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Catalan Gomez MT, Sol Vidiella J, Castella Castella M, et al. Implementation of safety devices: biological accident prevention. [Spanish] Implantacion de material de biosegurida: prevencion de accidentes biologicos. Revista de enfermeria (Barcelona, Spain). 2010;33(4):50–4. Catalan Gomez MT, Sol Vidiella J, Castella Castella M, et al. Implementation of safety devices: biological accident prevention. [Spanish] Implantacion de material de biosegurida: prevencion de accidentes biologicos. Revista de enfermeria (Barcelona, Spain). 2010;33(4):50–4.
49.
go back to reference Roudot-Thoraval F, Montagne O, Schaeffer A, et al. Costs and benefits of measures to prevent needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(9):614–7.CrossRefPubMed Roudot-Thoraval F, Montagne O, Schaeffer A, et al. Costs and benefits of measures to prevent needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(9):614–7.CrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Griswold S, Bonaroti A, Rieder CJ, et al. Investigation of a safety-engineered device to prevent needlestick injury: Why has not StatLock stuck? BMJ Open 2013;3(4) doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002327. Griswold S, Bonaroti A, Rieder CJ, et al. Investigation of a safety-engineered device to prevent needlestick injury: Why has not StatLock stuck? BMJ Open 2013;3(4) doi:10.​1136/​bmjopen-2012-002327.
51.
go back to reference Reddy SG, Emery RJ. Assessing the effect of long-term availability of engineering controls on needlestick injuries among health care workers: a 3-year preimplementation and postimplementation comparison. Am J Infect Control. 2001;29(6):425–7.CrossRefPubMed Reddy SG, Emery RJ. Assessing the effect of long-term availability of engineering controls on needlestick injuries among health care workers: a 3-year preimplementation and postimplementation comparison. Am J Infect Control. 2001;29(6):425–7.CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference Theou-Anton N, Sinegre M, Gasciolli S, et al. Quality and safety improvements in the preparation and administration of intravenous cytotoxic therapies with new medical devices. EJHP Pract. 2009;15(3):46–50. Theou-Anton N, Sinegre M, Gasciolli S, et al. Quality and safety improvements in the preparation and administration of intravenous cytotoxic therapies with new medical devices. EJHP Pract. 2009;15(3):46–50.
53.
go back to reference Edwards C, Johnson C. Evaluation of a luer-activated intravenous administration system. JAVA. 2012;17(4):200–7.CrossRef Edwards C, Johnson C. Evaluation of a luer-activated intravenous administration system. JAVA. 2012;17(4):200–7.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Gartner K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(2):75–9.CrossRefPubMed Gartner K. Impact of a needleless intravenous system in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20(2):75–9.CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Gershon RRM, Pearse L, Grimes M, et al. The impact of multifocused interventions on sharps injury rates at an acute-care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(12):806–11.CrossRefPubMed Gershon RRM, Pearse L, Grimes M, et al. The impact of multifocused interventions on sharps injury rates at an acute-care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(12):806–11.CrossRefPubMed
56.
go back to reference L’Ecuyer PB, Schwab EO, Iademarco E, et al. Randomized prospective study of the impact of three needleless intravenous systems on needlestick injury rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17(12):803–8.CrossRefPubMed L’Ecuyer PB, Schwab EO, Iademarco E, et al. Randomized prospective study of the impact of three needleless intravenous systems on needlestick injury rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17(12):803–8.CrossRefPubMed
57.
go back to reference Lawrence LW, Delclos GL, Felknor SA, et al. The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous connection system: an assessment by injury rate and user satisfaction. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18(3):175–82.CrossRefPubMed Lawrence LW, Delclos GL, Felknor SA, et al. The effectiveness of a needleless intravenous connection system: an assessment by injury rate and user satisfaction. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18(3):175–82.CrossRefPubMed
58.
go back to reference MacPherson J. The interlink needleless intravenous system did not reduce the number of needlestick injuries in Christchurch hospital operating theatres. N Z Med J. 1996;109(1031):387–8.PubMed MacPherson J. The interlink needleless intravenous system did not reduce the number of needlestick injuries in Christchurch hospital operating theatres. N Z Med J. 1996;109(1031):387–8.PubMed
59.
go back to reference Orenstein R, Reynolds L, Karabaic M, et al. Do protective devices prevent needlestick injuries among health care workers? Am J Infect Control. 1995;23(6):344–51.CrossRefPubMed Orenstein R, Reynolds L, Karabaic M, et al. Do protective devices prevent needlestick injuries among health care workers? Am J Infect Control. 1995;23(6):344–51.CrossRefPubMed
60.
go back to reference Skolnick R, LaRocca J, Barba D, et al. Evaluation and implementation of a needleless intravenous system: making needlesticks a needless problem. Am J Infect Control. 1993;21(1):39–41.CrossRefPubMed Skolnick R, LaRocca J, Barba D, et al. Evaluation and implementation of a needleless intravenous system: making needlesticks a needless problem. Am J Infect Control. 1993;21(1):39–41.CrossRefPubMed
61.
go back to reference Terrell F, Williams B. Implementation of a customized needleless intravenous delivery system. J Intraven Nurs. 1993;16(6):339–44.PubMed Terrell F, Williams B. Implementation of a customized needleless intravenous delivery system. J Intraven Nurs. 1993;16(6):339–44.PubMed
62.
go back to reference Wolfrum J. A follow-up evaluation to a needle-free I.V. system. Nurs Manag. 1994;25(12):33–5.CrossRef Wolfrum J. A follow-up evaluation to a needle-free I.V. system. Nurs Manag. 1994;25(12):33–5.CrossRef
63.
go back to reference Yassi A, McGill ML, Khokhar JB. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a needleless intravenous access system. Am J Infect Control. 1995;23(2):57–64.CrossRefPubMed Yassi A, McGill ML, Khokhar JB. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a needleless intravenous access system. Am J Infect Control. 1995;23(2):57–64.CrossRefPubMed
64.
go back to reference 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(6):401–6.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(6):401–6.CrossRefPubMed
65.
go back to reference Billiet LS, Parker CR, Tanley PC, Wallas CH. Needlestick injury rate reduction during phlebotomy: a comparative study of two safety devices. Lab Med. 1991;22(2):120–3.CrossRef Billiet LS, Parker CR, Tanley PC, Wallas CH. Needlestick injury rate reduction during phlebotomy: a comparative study of two safety devices. Lab Med. 1991;22(2):120–3.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference McCleary J, Caldero K, Adams T. Guarded fistula needle reduces needlestick injuries in hemodialysis. Nephrol News Issues. 2002;16(6):66–70. 72.PubMed McCleary J, Caldero K, Adams T. Guarded fistula needle reduces needlestick injuries in hemodialysis. Nephrol News Issues. 2002;16(6):66–70. 72.PubMed
67.
go back to reference Rogues A, Verdun-Esquer C, Buisson-Valles I, et al. Impact of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries related to phlebotomy procedures in health care workers. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(8):441–4.CrossRefPubMed Rogues A, Verdun-Esquer C, Buisson-Valles I, et al. Impact of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries related to phlebotomy procedures in health care workers. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(8):441–4.CrossRefPubMed
68.
go back to reference Hoffmann C, Buchholz L, Schnitzler P. Reduction of needlestick injuries in healthcare personnel at a university hospital using safety devices. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013;8(1):20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hoffmann C, Buchholz L, Schnitzler P. Reduction of needlestick injuries in healthcare personnel at a university hospital using safety devices. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013;8(1):20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
go back to reference 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(1):18–23.CrossRefPubMed 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(1):18–23.CrossRefPubMed
70.
go back to reference Sohn S, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA, et al. Effect of implementing safety-engineered devices on percutaneous injury epidemiology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(7):536–42.CrossRefPubMed Sohn S, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA, et al. Effect of implementing safety-engineered devices on percutaneous injury epidemiology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(7):536–42.CrossRefPubMed
71.
go back to reference Valls V, Lozano MS, Yanez R, et al. Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(12):1352–60.CrossRefPubMed Valls V, Lozano MS, Yanez R, et al. Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(12):1352–60.CrossRefPubMed
72.
go back to reference Whitby M, McLaws M, Slater K. Needlestick injuries in a major teaching hospital: the worthwhile effect of hospital-wide replacement of conventional hollow-bore needles. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(3):180–6.CrossRefPubMed Whitby M, McLaws M, Slater K. Needlestick injuries in a major teaching hospital: the worthwhile effect of hospital-wide replacement of conventional hollow-bore needles. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(3):180–6.CrossRefPubMed
73.
go back to reference 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. 2006;56(8):566–74.CrossRef 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. 2006;56(8):566–74.CrossRef
74.
go back to reference Lavoie MC, Verbeek JH, Pahwa M. Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3:CD009740. Lavoie MC, Verbeek JH, Pahwa M. Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3:CD009740.
75.
go back to reference Mustafa RA, Santesso N, Brozek J, et al. The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):736–42. quiz 42 e1-5.CrossRefPubMed Mustafa RA, Santesso N, Brozek J, et al. The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):736–42. quiz 42 e1-5.CrossRefPubMed
76.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311–6.CrossRefPubMed Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Rami A. Ballout
Batoul Diab
Alain C. Harb
Rami Tarabay
Selma Khamassi
Elie A. Akl
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1705-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Health Services Research 1/2016 Go to the issue