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:17
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
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 77 条
[1]   Impact of safety needle devices on occupationally acquired needlestick injuries: a four-year prospective study [J].
Adams, D. ;
Elliott, T. S. J. .
JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 2006, 64 (01) :50-55
[2]  
Alarcon W, 2008, PREVENTING NEEDLESTI
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1998, Health Devices, V27, P184
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1997, LAB MED, V28, P293
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1997, HOSP EMPLOYEE HLTH, V16, P40
[6]  
ARaP Vaughan, 2002, REDUCING RISKS PROMO
[7]  
Beason R, 1992, J Intraven Nurs, V15, P11
[8]   Protection of healthcare workers from bloodborne pathogens [J].
Beekmann, SE ;
Henderson, DK .
CURRENT OPINION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2005, 18 (04) :331-336
[9]   NEEDLESTICK INJURY RATE REDUCTION DURING PHLEBOTOMY - A COMPARATIVE-STUDY OF 2 SAFETY DEVICES [J].
BILLIET, LS ;
PARKER, CR ;
TANLEY, PC ;
WALLAS, CH .
LABORATORY MEDICINE, 1991, 22 (02) :120-123
[10]  
Bohony J, 1993, Medsurg Nurs, V2, P469