Needle stick injuries among emergency medical services personnel: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionEMS personnel, including nurses working in prehospital care, are frontline responders in various emergencies and disaster scenarios. Due to their direct involvement in high-risk procedures such as injections and IV access under dynamic conditions, they are especially vulnerable to NSIs-a major occupational hazard with serious health implications. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence of NSIs among EMS personnel and highlight its significance for nursing practice, education, and safety policy.MethodThis study was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines, and its protocol was registered in PROSPERO under the code CRD42024615515. The searches were performed without time restrictions until the end of October 2024 across databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Manual searches were also performed via Google Scholar to ensure comprehensiveness. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis, and the I-2 index was employed to assess heterogeneity among studies. Data were analyzed using STATA software (version 15).ResultDuring the initial search of the information sources, 239 articles were identified from the reviewed databases. After screening, study selection, and quality assessment, 15 studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis, with 17,547 EMS personnel being analyzed. According to the meta-analysis results, the overall prevalence of NSIs among emergency medical services personnel was reported to be 24.21% (95% CI: 17.31-31.10, I2 = 99.3%, P < 0.000).ConclusionGiven the relatively high prevalence of NSIs among EMS personnel and the presence of specific risk factors associated with NSIs in EMS tasks compared to other professions, it is recommended to prioritize targeted training, regular evaluations, and ergonomic interventions to reduce the incidence of NSIs in EMS staff. Key occupational risk factors identified include shift work, high stress levels, fatigue, and exposure to unfamiliar environments. Educational programs, safety-engineered devices, and adherence to infection control protocols were among the most effective interventions noted.Clinical trial numberNot applicable.