Safe and effective use of a passive safety needle by healthcare professionals in a simulated environment, including perceptions and preferences.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL

Expert Review of Medical Devices Pub Date : 2023-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-11 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2023.2254680

Anna Serafin, Aleksandra Ryk, Wojciech Fendler

{"title":"Safe and effective use of a passive safety needle by healthcare professionals in a simulated environment, including perceptions and preferences.","authors":"Anna Serafin, Aleksandra Ryk, Wojciech Fendler","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2254680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Needlestick injuries (NSIs) may potentially expose healthcare professionals (HCPs) to bloodborne pathogens. Safety needles are designed to protect against NSIs. We evaluated whether a new fully passive safety needle could be used safely by HCPs.Research design and methods: The passive safety needle was tested by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in subcutaneous or intramuscular injection scenarios in simulation studies (1-3). Data collected included successes, close calls, difficulties, use errors, and failures. In study 4, HCPs rated the device safety (21-item questionnaire).Results: Overall, 104 participants completed 4772 simulated tasks, including 932 injections. 915 injections (98.18%) were performed successfully and no NSIs (0%) were observed in any of the studies. Studies 1 & 2: 84.15% tasks and 96.06% injections were completed successfully, but use errors occurred, mostly arising from the participants' mental model. There were no failures in Study 3. In Study 4, >98% of participants responded positively to every question, while all felt that the passive safety feature could eliminate NSIs and would better protect against bloodborne pathogens than other existing devices with active or semi-passive safety mechanisms.Conclusions: The passive safety needle was used successfully by HCPs, did not lead to any NSIs, and was rated as the safest compared to similar devices.","PeriodicalId":12330,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","volume":" ","pages":"963-971"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2254680","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Needlestick injuries (NSIs) may potentially expose healthcare professionals (HCPs) to bloodborne pathogens. Safety needles are designed to protect against NSIs. We evaluated whether a new fully passive safety needle could be used safely by HCPs.

Research design and methods: The passive safety needle was tested by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in subcutaneous or intramuscular injection scenarios in simulation studies (1-3). Data collected included successes, close calls, difficulties, use errors, and failures. In study 4, HCPs rated the device safety (21-item questionnaire).

Results: Overall, 104 participants completed 4772 simulated tasks, including 932 injections. 915 injections (98.18%) were performed successfully and no NSIs (0%) were observed in any of the studies. Studies 1 & 2: 84.15% tasks and 96.06% injections were completed successfully, but use errors occurred, mostly arising from the participants' mental model. There were no failures in Study 3. In Study 4, >98% of participants responded positively to every question, while all felt that the passive safety feature could eliminate NSIs and would better protect against bloodborne pathogens than other existing devices with active or semi-passive safety mechanisms.

Conclusions: The passive safety needle was used successfully by HCPs, did not lead to any NSIs, and was rated as the safest compared to similar devices.

查看原文本刊更多论文

医疗保健专业人员在模拟环境中安全有效地使用被动安全针，包括感知和偏好。

背景：针刺损伤（NSI）可能使医疗保健专业人员（HCP）暴露于血源性病原体。安全针设计用于防止NSI。我们评估了HCP是否可以安全使用一种新的全被动安全针。研究设计和方法：在模拟研究中，医生、护士和药剂师在皮下或肌肉注射场景中测试了被动安全针（1-3）。收集的数据包括成功、险胜、困难、使用错误和失败。在研究4中，HCP对器械安全性进行了评分（21项问卷）。结果：总体而言，104名参与者完成了4772项模拟任务，包括932次注射。915次注射（98.18%）成功，在任何研究中均未观察到NSI（0%）。研究1和2：84.15%的任务和96.06%的注射成功完成，但出现了使用错误，主要是由参与者的心理模型引起的。研究3中没有失败。在研究4中，98%以上的参与者对每个问题都做出了积极回应，而所有人都认为被动安全功能可以消除NSI，并且比其他具有主动或半被动安全机制的现有设备更好地抵御血源性病原体。结论：HCP成功地使用了被动安全针，没有导致任何NSI，并且与类似设备相比被评为最安全的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Review of Medical Devices 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

5.90

自引率

3.20%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal serves the device research community by providing a comprehensive body of high-quality information from leading experts, all subject to rigorous peer review. The Expert Review format is specially structured to optimize the value of the information to reader. Comprehensive coverage by each author in a key area of research or clinical practice is augmented by the following sections: Expert commentary - a personal view on the most effective or promising strategies Five-year view - a clear perspective of future prospects within a realistic timescale Key issues - an executive summary cutting to the author''s most critical points In addition to the Review program, each issue also features Medical Device Profiles - objective assessments of specific devices in development or clinical use to help inform clinical practice. There are also Perspectives - overviews highlighting areas of current debate and controversy, together with reports from the conference scene and invited Editorials.