BACKGROUND: Needlestick injuries are common during surgical procedures. Following such an injury, local protocols should be followed to minimize the risk of infection. AIMS: To identify who sustains such injuries, under what circumstances and what actions are taken to minimize the risk and in response to intraoperative needlestick injuries. METHODS: A questionnaire was submitted via e-mail to all staff in a National Health Service trust who took part in operations. The results were checked against occupational health department (OHD) records. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six of 255 appropriate responders completed the questionnaire (53%). Fifteen of 31 consultants (48%), 12/36 junior doctors (33%), 0/39 midwives (0%) and 8/30 theatre staff (27%) reported having had at least one intraoperative needlestick injury over the past year. Awareness of local protocols was significantly worse in the junior doctor group. Ninety-three percent of consultants, 67% of junior doctors and 13% of theatre staff did not comply with local protocols. The length of time it takes to do so (48%) and a perceived low infection risk of the patient (78%) were the commonest reasons for this. Hand dominance, role during surgery and double gloving were not significant risk factors; however, rare use of a no-touch technique was. Comparison with OHD records suggested that a maximum of 16% of intraoperative needlestick injuries were dealt with in accordance to local policy. CONCLUSIONS: Non-compliance with needlestick injury protocols is commonest among senior surgical staff. A revision of the protocol to reduce the time it takes to complete it may improve compliance.
BACKGROUND:Needlestick injuries are common during surgical procedures. Following such an injury, local protocols should be followed to minimize the risk of infection. AIMS: To identify who sustains such injuries, under what circumstances and what actions are taken to minimize the risk and in response to intraoperative needlestick injuries. METHODS: A questionnaire was submitted via e-mail to all staff in a National Health Service trust who took part in operations. The results were checked against occupational health department (OHD) records. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six of 255 appropriate responders completed the questionnaire (53%). Fifteen of 31 consultants (48%), 12/36 junior doctors (33%), 0/39 midwives (0%) and 8/30 theatre staff (27%) reported having had at least one intraoperative needlestick injury over the past year. Awareness of local protocols was significantly worse in the junior doctor group. Ninety-three percent of consultants, 67% of junior doctors and 13% of theatre staff did not comply with local protocols. The length of time it takes to do so (48%) and a perceived low infection risk of the patient (78%) were the commonest reasons for this. Hand dominance, role during surgery and double gloving were not significant risk factors; however, rare use of a no-touch technique was. Comparison with OHD records suggested that a maximum of 16% of intraoperative needlestick injuries were dealt with in accordance to local policy. CONCLUSIONS: Non-compliance with needlestick injury protocols is commonest among senior surgical staff. A revision of the protocol to reduce the time it takes to complete it may improve compliance.