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

被引:16
|
作者
Ballout, Rami A. [2 ]
Diab, Batoul [3 ]
Harb, Alain C.
Tarabay, Rami [3 ]
Khamassi, Selma [4 ]
Akl, Elie A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Amer Univ Beirut, Med Ctr, Dept Internal Med, POB 11-0236, Beirut 11072020, Lebanon
[2] Amer Univ Beirut, Fac Med, Beirut, Lebanon
[3] Lebanese Univ, Beirut, Lebanon
[4] WHO, Geneva, Switzerland
关键词
Systematic review; Healthcare workers; Healthcare setting; Needle-stick injuries; Safety-engineered devices; Intravenous; Phlebotomy; Meta-analysis; Blood-borne pathogens; PREVENTING PERCUTANEOUS INJURIES; NEEDLESTICK INJURIES; SHARPS INJURIES; ACCESS SYSTEM; IMPACT; RATES; REDUCTION; QUALITY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1186/s12913-016-1705-y
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
下载
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rami A. Ballout
    Batoul Diab
    Alain C. Harb
    Rami Tarabay
    Selma Khamassi
    Elie A. Akl
    BMC Health Services Research, 16
  • [2] Safety-Engineered Devices in 2012: The Critical Healthcare Workers in Device Selection
    Jagger, Janine
    Perry, Jane
    INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2013, 34 (06): : 615 - 618
  • [3] Safety engineered injection devices for intramuscular, subcutaneous and intradermal injections in healthcare delivery settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Harb A.C.
    Tarabay R.
    Diab B.
    Ballout R.A.
    Khamassi S.
    Akl E.A.
    BMC Nursing, 14 (1)
  • [4] Prevalence of tobacco use in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Nilan, Kapka
    McKeever, Tricia M.
    McNeill, Ann
    Raw, Martin
    Murray, Rachael L.
    PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (07):
  • [5] COVID-19 and healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Gholami, Mandana
    Fawad, Iman
    Shadan, Sidra
    Rowaiee, Rashed
    Ghanem, HedaietAllah
    Khamis, Amar Hassan
    Ho, Samuel B.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2021, 104 : 335 - 346
  • [6] Economic evaluation of safety-engineered devices and training in reducing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers in South Africa
    de Jager, P.
    Zungu, M.
    Dyers, R. E.
    SAMJ SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2018, 108 (06): : 477 - 483
  • [7] ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PREVENTION OF MEDICAL SHARPS INJURIES WITH SAFETY-ENGINEERED DEVICES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Barnett, G. S.
    Maclaine, G. D. H.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2013, 16 (07) : A455 - A455
  • [8] Incidence of Influenza in Healthy Adults and Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Kuster, Stefan P.
    Shah, Prakesh S.
    Coleman, Brenda L.
    Lam, Po-Po
    Tong, Agnes
    Wormsbecker, Anne
    McGeer, Allison
    PLOS ONE, 2011, 6 (10):
  • [9] Turnover intention among healthcare workers in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Gebrekidan, Amanuel Yosef
    Enaro, Eskindir Yilma
    Azeze, Gedion
    Adella, Getachew Asmare
    Kassie, Gizachew Ambaw
    Haile, Kirubel Eshetu
    Asgedom, Yordanos Sisay
    BMJ OPEN, 2023, 13 (05):
  • [10] Workplace violence against female healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ajuwa, May-Elizabeth Pere-ere
    Veyrier, Clair-Antoine
    Cousin Cabrolier, Lorraine
    Chassany, Olivier
    Marcellin, Fabienne
    Yaya, Issifou
    Duracinsky, Martin
    BMJ OPEN, 2024, 14 (08):