B Stringer1, C Infante-Rivard, J A Hanley. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. bstringe@uwo.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Operating theatre personnel are at increased risk for transmission of blood borne pathogens when passing sharp instruments. The hands-free technique, whereby a tray or other means are used to eliminate simultaneous handling of sharp instruments, has been recommended. AIMS: To prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the hands-free technique in reducing the incidence of percutaneous injuries, contaminations, and glove tears arising from handling sharp instruments. METHODS: For each of 3765 operations carried out in main and surgical day care operating theatres in a large urban hospital, over six months, circulating nurses recorded the proportion of use of the hands-free technique during each operation, as well as other features of the operation. The hands-free technique, considered to be used when 75% or more of the passes in an operation were done in this way, was used in 42% of operations. The relative rate of incidents (percutaneous injuries, contaminations, and glove tears) in operations where the hands-free technique was used and not used, with adjustment via multiple logistic regression for the different risk profiles of the two sets of operations, was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 143 incidents (40 percutaneous injuries, 51 contaminations, and 52 glove tears) were reported. In operations with greater than 100 ml blood loss, the incident rate was 4% (18/486) when the hands-free technique was used and 10% (90/880) when it was not, approximately 60% less. When adjusted for differences in type and duration of surgery, emergency status, noisiness, time of day, and number present for 75% of the operation, the reduction in the rate was 59% (95% CI 23% to 72%). In operations with less than 100 ml blood loss, the corresponding rates were 1.4% (15/1051) when the hands-free technique was used and 1.5% (19/1259) when it was not used. Adjustment for differences in risk factors did not alter the difference. CONCLUSIONS: Although not effective in all operations, use of the hands-free technique was effective in operations with more substantial blood loss.
BACKGROUND: Operating theatre personnel are at increased risk for transmission of blood borne pathogens when passing sharp instruments. The hands-free technique, whereby a tray or other means are used to eliminate simultaneous handling of sharp instruments, has been recommended. AIMS: To prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of the hands-free technique in reducing the incidence of percutaneous injuries, contaminations, and glove tears arising from handling sharp instruments. METHODS: For each of 3765 operations carried out in main and surgical day care operating theatres in a large urban hospital, over six months, circulating nurses recorded the proportion of use of the hands-free technique during each operation, as well as other features of the operation. The hands-free technique, considered to be used when 75% or more of the passes in an operation were done in this way, was used in 42% of operations. The relative rate of incidents (percutaneous injuries, contaminations, and glove tears) in operations where the hands-free technique was used and not used, with adjustment via multiple logistic regression for the different risk profiles of the two sets of operations, was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 143 incidents (40 percutaneous injuries, 51 contaminations, and 52 glove tears) were reported. In operations with greater than 100 ml blood loss, the incident rate was 4% (18/486) when the hands-free technique was used and 10% (90/880) when it was not, approximately 60% less. When adjusted for differences in type and duration of surgery, emergency status, noisiness, time of day, and number present for 75% of the operation, the reduction in the rate was 59% (95% CI 23% to 72%). In operations with less than 100 ml blood loss, the corresponding rates were 1.4% (15/1051) when the hands-free technique was used and 1.5% (19/1259) when it was not used. Adjustment for differences in risk factors did not alter the difference. CONCLUSIONS: Although not effective in all operations, use of the hands-free technique was effective in operations with more substantial blood loss.
Authors: F Lot; J C Séguier; S Fégueux; P Astagneau; P Simon; M Aggoune; P van Amerongen; M Ruch; M Cheron; G Brücker; J C Desenclos; J Drucker Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1999-01-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J I Tokars; D M Bell; D H Culver; R Marcus; M H Mendelson; E P Sloan; B F Farber; D Fligner; M E Chamberland; P S McKibben Journal: JAMA Date: 1992-06-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R Harpaz; L Von Seidlein; F M Averhoff; M P Tormey; S D Sinha; K Kotsopoulou; S B Lambert; B H Robertson; J D Cherry; C N Shapiro Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-02-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A L Panlilio; D R Foy; J R Edwards; D M Bell; B A Welch; C M Parrish; D H Culver; P W Lowry; W R Jarvis; C A Perlino Journal: JAMA Date: 1991-03-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kristin M DeGirolamo; Douglas J Courtemanche; Warren D Hill; Angie Kennedy; Erik D Skarsgard Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Bernadette Stringer; Ted Haines; Charles H Goldsmith; Jennifer Blythe; Ramon Berguer; Joel Andersen; Christopher J De Gara Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792