The Use of Conventional and Safety Engineered Sharp Needles and Other Devices in B.C

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!

Thanks to the participants of the Safety Sharp Devices survey that has been administered on March, 2017. Kim, Deirdre, Genelle and Scot are the winners of the $100 cash cards.

Here you can find some information about the survey and our previous studies.

Blood and body fluid (BBF) exposures pose major health risks to healthcare workers (HCWs) because of potential transmission of diseases such as hepatitis C, hepatitis B, and HIV. Since January 2008 WorkSafeBC regulations have mandated the adoption of safety engineered medical devices (SEMDs) in all healthcare facilities to reduce the potential for BBF exposures.

A new study that has recently been funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) is underway. The study, titled: Safety and conventional sharp devices: A survey of nurses and physicians in BC aims to conduct a survey of physicians and nurses in British Columbia by using a questionnaire developed by our team to identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, reducing BBP exposure risk that are associated with the use of conventional and safety sharp devices. These steps are needed to ensure a scientifically valid questionnaire that thoroughly addresses HCWs’ attitudes and behaviours related to conventional and safety sharp devices, and to provide recommendations to decrease the risk of infectious disease transmission to HCWs.

This new research project builds on our previous research:

The ‘Safety Engineered Medical Devices Activation Study – The BC Experience’ was conducted in six participating hospitals in three health authorities (Fraser Health Authority (FH), Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA), and Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA)) from 2009 to 2011.

The primary objectives were to assess:

1) the number of SEMDs relative to the number of conventional (non-safety-engineered) medical devices used in participating hospitals;

2) the activation rates of SEMDs;

3) nurses’ physicians’, and phlebotomists’ views regarding the risks associated with exposure to BBF with the use of SEMDs.

Results: 699 sharps disposal containers were audited. To make comparisons across hospitals and nursing units we focussed on three categories of
devices for which the use of safety devices, rather than conventional devices, was expected: phlebotomydevices, IV catheters, and needles and syringes. The audits determined the number of safety and
conventional devices, as well as the percentages of non-activated safety devices.

In all, we found that 8% of phlebotomy devices, 15%  of IV devices, and 26% of needles and syringes in the audited sharps containers were either conventional or non-activated safety
devices, both of which pose elevated risks of percutaneous injury.

Several themes emerged from the HCWs’ interviews including concern with issues: relating to device selection; regarding initial and follow-up training for device use; relating to device accessibility; and regarding monitoring of conventional and safety sharp device use within acute care facilities

Link to the complete WorkSafeBC report

 

This research is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)