Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T01:26:04.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of the Haddon Matrix as a Tool for Assessing Risk Factors for Sharps Injury in Emergency Departments in the United Arab Emirates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

M. Ganczak ,
P. Barss ,
A. Al-Marashda ,
A. Al-Marzouqi  and
N. Al-Kuwaiti
M. Ganczak
Affiliation:
Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology, and Public Health, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
P. Barss*
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
A. Al-Marashda
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
A. Al-Marzouqi
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
N. Al-Kuwaiti
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
*
Department of Community Medicine, United Arab Emirates University, PO Box 17666, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigated the epidemiology and prevention of sharps injuries in the United Arab Emirates. Among 82 emergency nurses and 38 doctors who responded to our questionnaire, risk factors for sharp device injuries identified using the Haddon matrix included personal factors (for the pre-event phase, a lack of infection control training, a lack of immunization, and recapping needles, and for the postevent phase, underreporting of sharps injuries) and equipment-related factors (for the pre-event phase, failure to use safe devices; for the event phase, failure to use gloves in all appropriate situations). Nearly all injuries to doctors were caused by suture needles, and among nurses more than 50% of injuries were caused by hollow-bore needles.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 6 , June 2007 , pp. 751 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007

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.Collins, CH, Kennedy, DA. Microbiological hazards of occupational needlestick and ‘sharps’ injuries. J Appl Bacteriol 1987;62:385–402.Google Scholar
2.CDC's Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (2004). Workbook for designing, implementing, and evaluating a sharps injury prevention program. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/sharpssafety/resources.html. Accessed April 21, 2007.Google Scholar
3.Doebbeling, B, Vaughn, TE, McCoy, KD, et al. Percutaneous injury. Blood exposure and adherence to standard precautions: are hospital-based health care providers still at risk? Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:1006–1013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Ganczak, M, Milona, M, Szych, Z. Nurses and occupational exposures to bloodborne viruses. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:175–180.Google Scholar
5.Kelen, GD, Green, GB, Purcel, R, et al.Hepatitis B and hepatitis C in emergency department patients. NEJM 1992;326:1399–1404.Google Scholar
6.Barss, P, Smith, GS, Baker, SP, Mohan, D. The epidemiologic basis for prevention. In: Injury Prevention: an International Perspective. Epidemiology, Surveillance, Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998:12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Barss, P, Smith, GS, Baker, SP, Mohan, D. Determinants of injuries. In: Injury Prevention: an International Perspective. Epidemiology, Surveillance, Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998: 75–102.Google Scholar
8.Barss, P, Smith, GS, Baker, SP, Mohan, D. Occupational injuries. In: Injury Prevention: an International Perspective. Epidemiology, Surveillance, Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998:219–232.Google Scholar
9.Barss, P. Epidemic of injury in the United Arab Emirates: Injury prevention, safety promotion, and patient safety—is there a link? Emirates Med J 2004;22:1–5.Google Scholar
10.Panlilio, AM, Cardo, DM, Groshkopf, LA, et al.Guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HIV and recommendations for post exposure prophylaxis. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005;54 (RR-09):1–17.Google Scholar
11.Dictionary of cancer terms. National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov. Accessed August 8, 2006.Google Scholar
12.Kosgeroglu, N, Ayranci, U, Vardareli, E, et al.Occupational exposure to hepatitis infection among Turkish nurses: frequency of needle exposure, sharps injuries and vaccination. Epidemiol Infect 2004;132:27–33.Google Scholar
13.Perry, J, Parker, G, Jagger, I. EPINet Report:2003 percutaneous injury rates. AEP 2005;7:42–45.Google Scholar