Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:22:37.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of Gloves and Reduction of Risk of Injury Caused by Needles or Sharp Medical Devices in Healthcare Workers: Results from a Case-Crossover Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Laura M. Kinlin ,
Murray A. Mittleman ,
Anthony D. Harris ,
Michael A. Rubin  and
David N. Fisman
Laura M. Kinlin
Affiliation:
Research Institute of the Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Murray A. Mittleman
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Anthony D. Harris
Affiliation:
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
Michael A. Rubin
Affiliation:
University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City
David N. Fisman*
Affiliation:
Research Institute of the Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Departments of Health Policy, Evaluation and Management, and Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
*
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Room 678, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5T 3M7 (david.fisman@utoronto xa)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Standard precautions are advocated for reducing the number of injuries caused by needles and sharp medical devices (“sharps injuries”), but the effectiveness of gloves in preventing such injuries has not been established. We evaluated factors associated with gloving practices and identified associations between gloving practices and sharps-injury risk.

Design.

Usual-frequency case-crossover study.

Setting.

Thirteen medical centers in the United States and Canada.

Participants.

Six hundred thirty-six healthcare workers who presented to employee health clinics after sharps injury.

Methods.

Structured telephone questionnaires were administered to assess usual behaviors and circumstances at the time of injury.

Results.

Of 636 injured healthcare workers, 195 were scrubbed in an operating room or procedure suite when injured, and 441 were injured elsewhere. Nonscrubbed individuals were more commonly gloved when treating patients who were perceived to have a high risk of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus infection than when treating other patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.53 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.30-4.91]). Nurses (aOR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.04-0.32]) and other employees (aOR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.07-0.77]) were less commonly gloved at injury than were physicians and physician trainees. Gloves reduced injury risk in case-crossover analyses (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.22-0.50]). In scrubbed individuals, involvement in an orthopedic procedure was associated with double gloving at injury (aOR, 13.7 [95% CI, 4.55-41.3]); this gloving practice was associated with decreased injury risk (IRR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.10-0.42]).

Conclusions.

Although the use of gloves reduces the risk of sharps injuries in health care, use among healthcare workers is inconsistent and may be influenced by risk perception and healthcare culture. Glove use should be emphasized as a key element of multimodal sharps-injury reduction programs.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 31 , Issue 9 , September 2010 , pp. 908 - 917
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Jagger, J, Bentley, M, Juillet, E. Advances in exposure prevention: direct cost of follow-up for percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposures to at-risk body fluids: data from two hospitals, http://healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/safetycenter/internetsafetycenterwebpages/TrainingEducational Resources/Cost-of-Exposures.pdf. Published 1998. Accessed March 19, 2010.Google Scholar
2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH Alert: Preventing Needlestick Injuries in Health Care Settings. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services (NIOSH), 1999.Google Scholar
3. US General Accounting Office. Occupational Safety: Cost and Benefit Implications of Needlestick Prevention Devices for Hospitals. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office, 2000.Google Scholar
4. US Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Record Summary of the Request for Information on Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens due to Percutaneous Injury: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, 1999. http://www.osha.gov/html/ndl report052099.html. Accessed March 19, 2010.Google Scholar
5. David, HT, David, YM. Living with needlestick injuries. J Can Dent Assoc 1997;63:283–286.Google Scholar
6. Gershon, RR, Flanagan, PA, Karkashian, C, et al. Healthcare workers' experience with postexposure management of bloodborne pathogen exposures: a pilot study. Am J Infect Control 2000;28:421–428.Google Scholar
7. Worthington, MG, Ross, JJ, Bergeron, EK. Posttraumatic stress disorder after occupational HIV exposure: two cases and a literature review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:215–217.Google Scholar
8. Siegel, J, Rhinehart, E, Jackson, M, Chiarello, L; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/isolation/Isolation2007.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2010.Google Scholar
9. Garner, JS. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Part I. Evolution of isolation practices, Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:24–31.Google ScholarPubMed
10. US Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens; needlestick and other sharps injuries; final rule. 66 Federal Register 5317-5325 (2001). http://www.osha.gov. Accessed July 21, 2010.Google Scholar
11. Bennett, NT, Howard, RJ. Quantity of blood inoculated in a needlestick injury from suture needles. J Am Coll Surg 1994;178:107–110.Google Scholar
12. Johnson, GK, Nolan, T, Wuh, HC, Robinson, WS. Efficacy of glove combinations in reducing cell culture infection after glove puncture with needles contaminated with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:435–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Mast, ST, Woolwine, JD, Gerberding, JL. Efficacy of gloves in reducing blood volumes transferred during simulated needlestick injury. J Infect Dis 1993;168:1589–1592.Google Scholar
14. McLeod, GG. Needlestick injuries at operations for trauma: are surgical gloves an effective barrier? J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989;71:489–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Wright, JG, McGeer, AJ, Chyatte, D, Ransohoff, DF. Mechanisms of glove tears and sharp injuries among surgical personnel. JAMA 1991;266:1668–1671.Google Scholar
16. Wong, ES, Stoika, JL, Chinchilli, VM, Williams, DS, Stuart, CG, Markowitz, SM. Are universal precautions effective in reducing the number of occupational exposures among healthcare workers? A prospective study of physicians on a medical service. JAMA 1991;265:1123–1128.Google Scholar
17. Doebbeling, BN, Wenzel, RR The direct costs of universal precautions in a teaching hospital. JAMA 1990;264:2083–2087.Google Scholar
18. Tanner, J, Parkinson, H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(3):CD003087.Google ScholarPubMed
19. St Germaine, RL, Hanson, J, de Gara, CJ. Double gloving and practice attitudes among surgeons. Am J Surg 2003;185:141–145.Google Scholar
20. Matta, H, Thompson, AM, Rainey, JB. Does wearing two pairs of gloves protect operating theatre staff from skin contamination? BMJ 1988;297:597–598.Google Scholar
21. Wilson, SJ, Sellu, D, Uy, A, Jaffer, MA. Subjective effects of double gloves on surgical performance. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1996;78:20–22.Google ScholarPubMed
22. Berridge, DC, Starky, G, Jones, NA, Chamberlain, J. A randomized controlled trial of double-versus single-gloving in vascular surgery. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1998;43:9–10.Google Scholar
23. US Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Safer Needle Devices: Protecting Health Care Workers Administration, 1997. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, 1997.Google Scholar
24. Evanoff, B, Kim, L, Mutha, S, et al. Compliance with universal precautions among emergency department personnel caring for trauma patients. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:160–165.Google Scholar
25. Michaisen, A, Delclos, GL, Felknor, SA, et al. Compliance with universal precautions among physicians. J Occup Environ Med 1997;39:130–137.Google Scholar
26. Fisman, DN, Harris, AD, Sorock, GS, Mittleman, MA. Sharps-related injuries in healthcare workers: a case-crossover study. Am J Med 2003;114:688–694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Fisman, DN, Harris, AD, Rubin, M, Sorock, GS, Mittleman, MA. Fatigue increases the risk of injury from sharp devices in medical trainees: results from a case-crossover study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:10–17.Google Scholar
28. Neutel, CI, Perry, S, Maxwell, C. Medication use and risk of falls. Phar-macoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002;11:97–104.Google Scholar
29. Borges, G, Cherpitel, C, Mittleman, M. Risk of injury after alcohol consumption: a case-crossover study in the emergency department. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:1191–1200.Google Scholar
30. Hagel, BE, Pless, IB, Goulet, C, Platt, RW, Robitaille, Y. Effectiveness of helmets in skiers and snowboarders: case-control and case crossover study. BMJ 2005;330:281.Google Scholar
31. Kucera, KL, Loomis, D, Marshall, SW. A case-crossover study of triggers for hand injuries in commercial fishing. Occup Environ Med 2008;65:336–341.Google Scholar
32. Lombardi, DA, Sorock, GS, Holander, L, Mittleman, MA. A case-crossover study of transient risk factors for occupational hand trauma by gender. J Occup Environ Hyg 2007;4:790–797.Google Scholar
33. Valent, F, Brusaferro, S, Barbone, F. A case-crossover study of sleep and childhood injury. Pediatrics 2001;107:E23.Google Scholar
34. Maclure, M. The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:144–153.Google Scholar
35. Maclure, M, Mittleman, MA. Should we use a case-crossover design? Annu Rev Public Health 2000;21:193–221.Google Scholar
36. Mittleman, MA, Maclure, M, Robins, JM. Control sampling strategies for case-crossover studies: an assessment of relative efficiency. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:91–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Greenland, S, Robins, JM. Conceptual problems in the definition and interpretation of attributable fractions. Am J Epidemiol 1988;128:1185–1197.Google Scholar
38. Patterson, JM, Novak, CB, Mackinnon, SE, Patterson, GA. Surgeons' concern and practices of protection against bloodborne pathogens. Ann Surg 1998;228:266–272.Google Scholar
39. Wilburn, SQ, Eijkemans, G. Preventing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers: a WHO-ICN collaboration. Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:451–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Burke, S, Madan, I. Contamination incidents among doctors and mid-wives: reasons for nonreporting and knowledge of risks. Occup Med (Lond) 1997;47:357–360.Google Scholar
41. Hamory, BH. Underreporting of needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 1983;11:174–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. McGeer, A, Simor, AE, Low, DE. Epidemiology of needlestick injuries in house officers. J Infect Dis 1990;162:961–964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Waterman, J, Jankowski, R, Madan, I. Underreporting of needlestick injuries by medical students. J Hosp Infect 1994;26:149–150.Google Scholar
44. Greenland, S, Rothman, KJ. Introduction to stratified analysis. In: Roth-man, KJ, Greenland, S, Lash, TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008.Google Scholar
45. Greenland, S, Robins, JM. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 1985;41:55–68.Google Scholar