• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

英国安全工程设备使用:自 2013 年锐器规章以来的变化。

UK safety-engineered device use: changes since the 2013 sharps regulations.

机构信息

Grimmond and Associates, Microbiology Consultants, Hamilton, New Zealand.

出版信息

Occup Med (Lond). 2019 Aug 22;69(5):352-358. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqz087.

DOI:10.1093/occmed/kqz087
PMID:31375827
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The 2013 UK sharps safety regulations require healthcare facilities to use safety-engineered devices (SEDs) to protect staff. The recent increase in UK-reported occupational exposures could indicate increased reporting or increased exposures from suboptimal SED use.

AIMS

To ascertain SED use through examination of sharps container contents in a sample of UK hospitals.

METHODS

Reusable sharps containers (RSCs) were selected from seven UK hospitals in 2013 and seven different hospitals in 2016. At licensed processing facilities, the operator, wearing protective apparel, decanted RSCs, separated hollow-bore needles (HBNs) from other sharps and enumerated HBNs into capped/uncapped non-SEDs, activated/non-activated/tampered SEDs, and blunt draw-up SEDs. Probability, risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence limits (95% CLs) were calculated using WinPepi v2.78.

RESULTS

In 2013 and 2016, respectively, 2545 HBNs were categorized from 22 RSCs versus 2959 HBNs from 33 RSCs; 70% of HBNs were SEDs versus 93% (P < 0.001; RR 1.33; CL 1.30-1.37); 32% of activatable HBNs were not activated versus 22% (<0.001; 0.67; 0.60-0.76); 41% of HBNs were discarded 'sharp' versus 20% (<0.001; 0.48; 0.44-0.52); 25% of HBNs were uncapped needles versus 6% (<0.001; 0.22; 0.19-0.26); 5% of HBNs were capped needles versus 1% (P > 0.05); and 1% of SEDs were tampered with in both years (P > 0.05). Hospital practices varied widely.

CONCLUSIONS

SED use and activation have increased significantly since 2013. Of concern is that in 2016, 22% of SEDs were non-activated and 20% of sharps were discarded 'sharp'. Increased training in SED handling, assiduous adherence to safe sharps work practices and a higher level of individual safety-ownership are indicated.

摘要

背景

2013 年英国锐器安全法规要求医疗保健机构使用安全工程设备(SED)来保护员工。最近英国报告的职业暴露增加可能表明报告增加或由于 SED 使用不当导致暴露增加。

目的

通过检查英国医院的锐器容器内容物来确定 SED 的使用情况。

方法

2013 年和 2016 年分别从英国的七家医院和七家不同的医院选择可重复使用的锐器容器(RSC)。在许可处理设施中,操作人员穿着防护装备,将 RSC 倾析,将空心针(HBN)从其他锐器中分离出来,并将 HBN 计数为带帽/无帽非 SED、激活/未激活/篡改的 SED 和钝头抽吸 SED。使用 WinPepi v2.78 计算概率、风险比(RR)和 95%置信区间(95%CL)。

结果

2013 年和 2016 年,分别从 22 个 RSC 中分类了 2545 个 HBN,从 33 个 RSC 中分类了 2959 个 HBN;70%的 HBN 是 SED,而 93%(P<0.001;RR 1.33;CL 1.30-1.37);32%的可激活 HBN 未激活,而 22%(<0.001;0.67;0.60-0.76);41%的 HBN 丢弃为“锋利”,而 20%(<0.001;0.48;0.44-0.52);25%的 HBN 是无帽针,而 6%(<0.001;0.22;0.19-0.26);5%的 HBN 是帽针,而 1%(P>0.05);并且 2013 年和 2016 年都有 1%的 SED 被篡改(P>0.05)。医院的做法差异很大。

结论

自 2013 年以来,SED 的使用和激活显著增加。令人担忧的是,2016 年有 22%的 SED 未激活,20%的锐器被丢弃为“锋利”。这表明需要加强 SED 处理方面的培训,严格遵守安全锐器工作实践,并提高个人安全意识。

相似文献

1
UK safety-engineered device use: changes since the 2013 sharps regulations.英国安全工程设备使用:自 2013 年锐器规章以来的变化。
Occup Med (Lond). 2019 Aug 22;69(5):352-358. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqz087.
2
Causes of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries When Using Devices with and without Safety Features.使用具有和不具有安全功能的装置时发生针刺和锐器伤的原因。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 24;17(23):8721. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238721.
3
Needlestick prevention devices: data from hospital surveillance in Piedmont, Italy-comprehensive analysis on needlestick injuries between healthcare workers after the introduction of safety devices.针刺伤预防装置:来自意大利皮埃蒙特医院监测的数据——对安全装置引入后医护人员之间针刺伤情况的综合分析
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 19;9(11):e030576. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030576.
4
Non-Safety and Safety Device Sharp Injuries-Risk of Incidents, SEDs Availability, Attitudes and Perceptions of Nurses According to Cross-Sectional Survey in Poland.非安全和安全装置锐器伤-根据波兰横断面调查的事件风险、SEDs 可获得性、护士态度和看法。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep 8;19(18):11315. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811315.
5
Sharp truth: health care workers remain at risk of bloodborne infection.严峻事实:医护人员仍面临血源性病原体感染风险。
Occup Med (Lond). 2015 Apr;65(3):210-4. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqu206. Epub 2015 Feb 6.
6
Do safety engineered devices reduce needlestick injuries?安全工程设备是否能减少针刺伤?
J Hosp Infect. 2018 Sep;100(1):99-104. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2018.04.026. Epub 2018 May 5.
7
A review of sharps injuries and preventative strategies.锐器伤及其预防策略综述。
J Hosp Infect. 2003 Apr;53(4):237-42. doi: 10.1053/jhin.2002.1378.
8
Economic benefits of safety-engineered sharp devices in Belgium - a budget impact model.比利时安全工程锐器的经济效益——预算影响模型。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Nov 25;13:489. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-489.
9
Conventional and sharp safety devices in 6 hospitals in British Columbia, Canada.加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省 6 家医院的传统和锐利安全装置。
Am J Infect Control. 2011 Nov;39(9):738-45. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.12.004. Epub 2011 Jun 22.
10
Reducing needlestick injuries through safety-engineered devices: results of a Japanese multi-centre study.通过安全工程设备减少针刺伤:一项日本多中心研究的结果。
J Hosp Infect. 2016 Feb;92(2):147-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2015.09.019. Epub 2015 Oct 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Did safety-engineered device implementation contribute to reducing the risk of needlestick and sharps injuries? Retrospective investigation of 20 years of observation in a specialist tertiary referral hospital.安全工程设备的实施是否有助于降低针刺和锐器伤的风险?对一家专科三级转诊医院 20 年观察的回顾性调查。
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2024 May 20;37(2):234-243. doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.02308. Epub 2024 May 9.
2
Temporal trend of accidents due to percutaneous exposure in a public hospital in Brazil, 2007-2019.2007-2019 年巴西一家公立医院因经皮暴露导致的事故的时间趋势。
Rev Bras Enferm. 2022 Aug 22;75(6):e20220046. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2022-0046. eCollection 2022.
3
Comparing risk changes of needlestick injuries between countries adopted and not adopted the needlestick safety and prevention act: A meta-analysis.
比较采用和未采用《针刺安全与预防法案》的国家之间针刺伤风险变化:一项荟萃分析。
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022 Sep;43(9):1221-1227. doi: 10.1017/ice.2021.372. Epub 2021 Oct 22.