Showing 2 results for Needlestick
A Gholami, Sh Salarilak, T Alinia, R Nejad Rahim,
Volume 6, Issue 3 (12-2010)
Abstract
Background & objectives: Personel who reguraly practice invasive procedures such as blood sample collection are particulary at risk to percutanous injuries. Needle stick injuries present the single gerates risk to medcial personnels. This sudy was undertaken to analyze the problem of needdle sticks injuries among health care workers at teaching hospitals in Urmia in 2008 year.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 400 personals of Urmia teaching hospitals. A structured questionnaire was used to interview the study participants at their work place. Participants were asked to recall needle stick injuries in the preceding 12 months. Factors such as work experience, type of procedure, action taken following injury etc were also studied. The samples were selected by using simple random sampling in every hospital. The data were analyzed according to aims, by using Descriptive and analytical method.
پ
Results: Around 25% (107/400) of the Health care workers had experienced a needle stick injury in the last six-months. Needle sticks injuries in females and male was 28% and 24% respectively. Most of the injuries created by needle (47.3%) and anjiocat needle (19.9%).
Conclusions: The results of this study show that the prevalence rates of needle stick injuries are a major risk in hospitals personnel. Therefore there is a need at the hospital level to have a uniform needle stick injuries policy covering safe work practices, safe disposal of sharps, procedures in event of needle stick injury, training including pre-employment training monitoring and evaluation of needle stick injuries and procedures for reporting needle stick injuries.
>
A Seraji, Hr Koohestani, N Baghcheghi, K Rezaei,
Volume 7, Issue 3 (12-2011)
Abstract
Background & Objectives: Nursing and midwifery students are at risk needlestick/sharps injuries (NSIs/Sis). Actual number of NSIs/SIs among students due to insufficient reporting it is not clear in Iran. The aim of this study was to explore the barriers of not reporting of NSIs/SIs among nursing students.
Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in Arak University of Medical Sciences in 2009. 207 and 68 nursing and midwifery students were participated in study, respectively. A questionnaire, consisting two sections of demographic information and questions about exposure to (NSIs/SIs) and frequency and barrier reporting of NSIs/SIs, was completed by students.
Results: According to the findings, 43% and 20.5% of nursing and midwifery students had experienced at least one contaminated NSIs/Sis in the past 12 months. Only 44.9 % (n=40) and 50% (n=7) of the nursing and midwifery who had experienced NSIs/Sis in the previous year, were reported all exposures to NSIs/Sis, respectively. The most important the reasons for not reporting injuries consisted of low probabilities of the infection risk of the injury source, not familiar with reporting process and fear of decreasing evaluation score.
Conclusion: NSIs/SIs and non-reporting of NSIs/SIs were highly prevalent in nursing and midwifery students. More education programs should be directed at students to increase their awareness of about NSIs/SIs. Also nursing and midwifery student’s instructors should give positive responses to nursing students for reporting NSIs/SIs.
