Nili Tabak1, Amal Musaa Shiaabana, Shaul Shasha. 1. Department of Nursing, School of Health Professions, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. ntabak@post.tau.ac.il
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study is to examine the connection between the health beliefs of hospital staff (doctors, nurses and auxiliary staff) and their failure to report needlestick injuries. BACKGROUND: Needlestick injury to hospital staff is quite frequent and can result in infections and disease, but staff frequently do not report the injury despite their awareness of the risk of blood-borne pathogens. METHODS: Five questionnaires were constructed based on three existing research tools and were tested for validity and reliability. Two hundred and forty questionnaires were distributed to eight randomly chosen departments of a single Israeli hospital. Seventy-six percent of the questionnaires were anonymously completed and returned. RESULTS: Nurses had the highest rate of needlestick injury, followed by auxiliary staff and doctors. Auxiliary staff showed the highest rate of compliance with the duty to report such injuries, while doctors showed the lowest. Perceived severity of contractable disease, the perceived efficacy of reporting injuries and overall motivation to maintain health were the best predictors of reporting compliance. Non-compliers emphasized the negative aspects of reporting the injuries, primarily that it took up too much time. CONCLUSIONS: The solution to non-compliance with the duty to report must be a targeted investment in training and education. Relevance to clinical practice. Finding the reasons for compliance and non-compliance with the duty to report needlestick injuries will help in designing educational programmes for hospital staff and in determining a strategy for improving health behaviour.
AIM: The aim of this study is to examine the connection between the health beliefs of hospital staff (doctors, nurses and auxiliary staff) and their failure to report needlestick injuries. BACKGROUND:Needlestick injury to hospital staff is quite frequent and can result in infections and disease, but staff frequently do not report the injury despite their awareness of the risk of blood-borne pathogens. METHODS: Five questionnaires were constructed based on three existing research tools and were tested for validity and reliability. Two hundred and forty questionnaires were distributed to eight randomly chosen departments of a single Israeli hospital. Seventy-six percent of the questionnaires were anonymously completed and returned. RESULTS: Nurses had the highest rate of needlestick injury, followed by auxiliary staff and doctors. Auxiliary staff showed the highest rate of compliance with the duty to report such injuries, while doctors showed the lowest. Perceived severity of contractable disease, the perceived efficacy of reporting injuries and overall motivation to maintain health were the best predictors of reporting compliance. Non-compliers emphasized the negative aspects of reporting the injuries, primarily that it took up too much time. CONCLUSIONS: The solution to non-compliance with the duty to report must be a targeted investment in training and education. Relevance to clinical practice. Finding the reasons for compliance and non-compliance with the duty to report needlestick injuries will help in designing educational programmes for hospital staff and in determining a strategy for improving health behaviour.