Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:25:00.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Workers' Compensation Claims for Needlestick Injuries Among Healthcare Workers in Washington State, 1996-2000

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Syed M. Shah ,
David Bonauto ,
Barbara Silverstein  and
Michael Foley
Syed M. Shah*
Affiliation:
from the Safety & Health Assessment & Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, Washington
David Bonauto
Affiliation:
from the Safety & Health Assessment & Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, Washington
Barbara Silverstein
Affiliation:
from the Safety & Health Assessment & Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, Washington
Michael Foley
Affiliation:
from the Safety & Health Assessment & Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, Washington
*
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Health Sciences Building, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK S7N5E5, Canada.. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To characterize accepted workers' compensation claims for needlestick injuries filed by healthcare workers (HCWs) in non-hospital compared with hospital settings in Washington State.

Design:

Descriptive study of all accepted workers' compensation claims filed between 1996 and 2000 for needlestick injuries.

Participants:

All Washington State HCWs eligible to file a state fund workers' compensation claim and those who filed a workers' compensation claim for a needlestick injury.

Results:

There were 3,303 accepted state fund HCW needlestick injury claims. The incidence of needlestick injury claims per 10,000 full-time-equivalent HCWs in hospitals was 158.6; in dental offices, 104.7; in physicians' offices, 87.0; and in skilled nursing facilities, 80.8. The most common mechanisms of needlestick injury by work location were as follows: for hospitals, suturing and other surgical procedures (16.7%), administering an injection (12.7%), and drawing blood (10%); for dentists' offices, recapping (21.3%) and cleaning trays and instruments (18.2%); for physicians' offices, disposal (22.2%) and administering an injection (10.2%); and for skilled nursing facilities, disposal (23.7%) and administering an injection (14.9%). Nurses accounted for the largest (29%) proportion of HCWs involved, followed by dental assistants (17%) and laboratory technicians and phlebotomists (12%) in non-hospital settings. Rates of needlestick injury claims increased for non-hospital settings by 7.5% annually (95% confidence interval [CI95], 4.89% to 10.22%; P < .0001). Rates decreased for hospital settings by 5.8% annually, but the decline was not statistically significant (CI95, -12.50% to 1.34%; P < .1088). HCWs were exposed to hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and human immunodeficiency viruses in non-hospital settings.

Conclusion:

There was a difference in the incidence rate and mechanisms of needlestick injuries on review of workers' compensation claim records for HCWs in non-hospital and hospital settings.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 26 , Issue 9 , September 2005 , pp. 775 - 781
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2005

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.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Surveillance System for Health Care Workers (NaSH). Summary Report for Data Collected From June 1995 Through July 1999. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion; 2001. Available at www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/NASH/report.htm. Accessed May 4, 2004.Google Scholar
2.Perry, J, Parker, G, Jagger, J. EPINet report: 2001 percutaneous injury rates. Advances in Exposure Prevention 2003;6:32–36.Google Scholar
3.Gillen, M, McNary, J, Lewis, J, et al.Sharps-related injuries in California healthcare facilities: pilot study results from the Sharps Injury Surveillance Registry. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:113–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Beltrami, EM, McArthur, MA, McGeer, A, et al.The nature and frequency of blood contacts among home healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:765–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Thurn, J, Willenbring, K, Crossley, K. Needlestick injuries and needle disposal in Minnesota physicians' offices. Am J Med 1989;86:575–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Shah, SM, Bonauto, D, Silverstein, B, Foley, M, Kalat, J. Injuries and illnesses from framing in residential construction, Washington State, 1993-1999. J Occup Environ Med 2003;45:1171–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Silverstein, B, Welp, E, Nelson, N, Kalat, J. Claims incidence of work-related disorders of the upper extremities: Washington State, 1987 through 1995. Am J Public Health 1998;88:1827–1833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kaufman, JD, Cohen, MA, Sama, SR, Shields, JW, Kalat, J. Occupational skin diseases in Washington State, 1989 through 1993: using workers' compensation data to identify cutaneous hazards. Am J Public Health 1998;88:1047–1051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Pollack, ES, Keimig, D. Counting Illnesses and Injuries in the Workplace: Proposals for a Better System. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Washington State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics. Trend Review. Available at www.doh.wa.gov/EHSPHL/hospdata/Summary/TrendReview.xls. Accessed December 15, 2002.Google Scholar
11.Jagger, J, Hunt, EH, Brand-Elnaggar, J, Pearson, RD. Rates of needlestick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. N Engl J Med 1988;319:284–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Choudhury, RP, Cleator, SJ. Preventing needlestick injuries. BMJ 1991:302:1602.Google Scholar
13. Anonymous. Needlesticks: preaching to the seroconverted? Lancet 1992;340:640–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Hatcher, IB. Reducing sharps injuries among healthcare workers: a sharps container quality improvement project, Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2002;28:410–414.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Tan, L, Hawk, JC, Sterling, ML. Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs: preventing needlestick injuries in health care settings. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:929–936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Jagger, J, Hunt, E, Pearson, R. Estimated cost of needlestick injuries for six major needled devices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:584–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Fisman, DN, Mittleman, MA, Sorock, GS, Harris, AD. Willingness to pay to avoid sharps-related injuries: a study in injured health care workers. Am J Infect Control 2002;30:283–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Tandberg, D, Stewart, KK, Doezema, D. Under-reporting of contaminated needlestick injuries in emergency health care workers. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:66–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Hamory, BH. Under-reporting of needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control 1983;11:174–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Tereskerz, PM, Jagger, J. Occupationally acquired HIV: the vulnerability of health care workers under workers' compensation laws. Am J Public Health 1997;87:1558–1562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar