Are Australia's healthcare workers stuck with inadequate  needle protection?

Jagger, Janine C

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04876.x

Topics

The most direct way to reduce percutaneous injuries is to make devices safer

In this issue of the Journal, Whitby and McLaws (page 418) provide a thorough epidemiological account of occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens by hollow-bore needles in one hospital.1 More studies such as theirs are needed in Australia, where there has been relatively little attention focused on this issue, as indicated by the few references to studies by Australian investigators cited in their article. As an American I find this surprising, because many successful prevention programs introduced in Australia have earned the admiration of public health professionals in other countries. Three examples come to mind: laws requiring seatbelt use and advanced passenger protection in motor vehicles; progressive HIV prevention programs; and programs to prevent ultraviolet light exposure and skin cancer. I am among the admirers of Australia's strong prevention record. In light of these progressive programs, how might one explain the relative neglect in Australia of such a serious occupational risk as bloodborne pathogen exposure?

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

Correspondence: jcj@virginia.edu

Competing interests:

Our research centre receives financial support from several competing medical product manufacturers.

1. Whitby M, McLaws M-L. Hollow-bore needlestick injuries in a tertiary teaching hospital: epidemiology, education and engineering. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 418 -418. <eMJA full text>
2. Sterling DA. Overview of health and safety in the health care environment. In: Charney W, editor. Essentials of modern hospital safety. Vol. 3. Ann Arbor: CRC Press, 1994.
3. Mahoney FJ, Stewart K, Hu H, et al. Progress toward the elimination of hepatitis B virus transmission among health care workers in the United States. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2601-2605.
4. Update: provisional Public Health Service recommendations for chemoprophylaxis after occupational exposure to HIV. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1996; 45: 468-480.
5. 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: 21-25.
6. Puro V, De Carli G, Petrosillo N, Ippolito G. Risk of exposure to bloodborne infection for Italian healthcare workers, by job category and work area. Studio Italiano Rischio Occupazionale da HIV Group. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001; 22: 206-210.
7. 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: 284-288.
8. Benson JS. FDA safety alert: needlestick and other risks from hypodermic needles on secondary LV administration sets — piggyback and intermittent I.V. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1992.
9. Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act 2000 (US). Pub. L. No. 106-430, 114 Stat. 1901. 11-6-2000.
10. Chen LBY, Bailey E, Kogan G, et al. Prevention of needlestick injuries in healthcare workers: 27 month experience with a resheathable safety winged steel needle using CDC NaSH Database. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21: 108.
11. Jagger J, Bentley MB. Injuries from vascular access devices: high risk and preventable. Collaborative EPINet Surveillance Group. J Intraven Nurs 1997; 20 Suppl: S33-S39.
12. 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: 120-123.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.