Healthc Inform Res.  2022 Apr;28(2):123-131. 10.4258/hir.2022.28.2.123.

Effect of the Automatic Needle Destroyer on Healthcare Providers’ Work in an Emergency Department: A Mixed-Methods Study

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Science & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
  • 2Department of Emergency Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 3Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 4Health Information and Strategy Center, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Abstract


Objectives
This study introduced a novel Automatic Needle Destroyer (AND) to an emergency department (ED) and assessed its effect on healthcare providers’ work.
Methods
Between August and September 2019, in the ED of a tertiary hospital in Seoul, we conducted a mixed-methods study to evaluate the efficiency, safety, and usability of the AND using video analysis, surveys, and in-depth interviews, wherein participants described the advantages and disadvantages of the AND.
Results
Compared to the existing method, introducing the AND significantly reduced the operating time from 2.32 ± 1.14 seconds to 1.77 ± 3.71 seconds (p < 0.001). The normal operation rate was 90.6%. The rate of needle-stick injuries (NSIs) and the mean system usability scale (SUS) showed no significant differences. The in-depth interviews indicated that the disadvantages of the AND were mostly operational. The advantages were related to profit, reduced direct contact with hazardous waste, and behavioral changes, such as not having to recap syringes.
Conclusions
We introduced the AND to an ED environment, where NSIs occur frequently and many syringes are used, to evaluate its effect on providers’ work. The AND reduced the time for needle disposal, but the normal operation rate was low. No significant differences were found in the SUS score or the rate of NSIs. Although there are some restrictions on introducing the AND immediately, this study’s results showed its potential usefulness. Efforts to improve the operation of the device and a longer study period are needed to fully achieve safety and efficiency.

Keyword

Emergency Service; Hospital; Occupational Health; Needlestick Injuries; Protective Devices; Feasibility Studies

Figure

  • Figure 1 Study design and population. ED: emergency department, AND: Automatic Needle Destroyer.

  • Figure 2 Installation and directions for the Automatic Needle Destroyer (AND). (A) Installation of the AND: the AND is installed on top of the sharps container in the medical cart. (B) Directions for the AND: ① a user places the syringe at the syringe inlet, ② the user presses the button, ③ the needle and needle connections are cut by a blade. The needle is separated into a sharps container and the body is separated into a wastebasket.

  • Figure 3 Percentage of needle-stick injury (NSI) occurrence by needle use stage.


Reference

References

1. van der Molen HF, Zwinderman KA, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Better effect of the use of a needle safety device in combination with an interactive workshop to prevent needle stick injuries. Saf Sci. 2011; 49(8–9):1180–6.
Article
2. Motaarefi H, Mahmoudi H, Mohammadi E, Hasanpour-Dehkordi A. Factors associated with needlestick injuries in health care occupations: a systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10(8):IE01–4.
Article
3. Bouya S, Balouchi A, Rafiemanesh H, Amirshahi M, Dastres M, Moghadam MP, et al. Global prevalence and device related causes of needle stick injuries among health care workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Glob Health. 2020; 86(1):35.
Article
4. Talaat M, Kandeel A, El-Shoubary W, Bodenschatz C, Khairy I, Oun S, et al. Occupational exposure to need-lestick injuries and hepatitis B vaccination coverage among health care workers in Egypt. Am J Infect Control. 2003; 31(8):469–74.
Article
5. Hassanpour Dehkordi A, Khaledi Far A. Effect of exercise training on the quality of life and echocardiography parameter of systolic function in patients with chronic heart failure: a randomized trial. Asian J Sports Med. 2015; 6(1):e22643.
Article
6. Tadesse M, Tadesse T. Epidemiology of needlestick injuries among health-care workers in Awassa City, Southern Ethiopia. Trop Doct. 2010; 40(2):111–3.
Article
7. Wilburn SQ, Eijkemans G. Preventing needlestick injuries among healthcare workers: a WHO-ICN collaboration. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2004; 10(4):451–6.
Article
8. Kromholz LR. Devices and methods for needle disposal (Patent No. WO/2018/191671) [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Intellectual Property Organization;2018. [cited at 2022 Mar 30]. Available from: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2018191671 .
9. Panek RJ, Japuntich JC, Arendt JA. Apparatus and method for unwinding a needle portion (Patent No. US7877849) [Internet]. Chevy Chase (MD): Unified Patent;2008. [cited at 2022 Mar 30]. Available from: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-7877849-B2 .
10. Grimmond T, Rings T, Taylor C, Creech R, Kampen R, Kable W, et al. Sharps injury reduction using Sharpsmart: a reusable sharps management system. J Hosp Infect. 2003; 54(3):232–8.
11. Alhazmi RA, Parker RD, Wen S. Needlestick injuries among emergency medical services providers in urban and rural areas. J Community Health. 2018; 43(3):518–23.
Article
12. Serinken M, Karcioglu O, Kutlu SS, Sener S, Keysan MK. A survey of needlesticks and sharp instrument injuries in emergency health care in Turkey. J Emerg Nurs. 2009; 35:205–10.
Article
13. Guo YL, Shiao J, Chuang YC, Huang KY. Needlestick and sharps injuries among health-care workers in Taiwan. Epidemiol Infect. 1999; 122(2):259–65.
Article
14. Hersey JC, Martin LS. Use of infection control guidelines by workers in healthcare facilities to prevent occupational transmission of HBV and HIV: results from a national survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994; 15(4 Pt 1):243–52.
Article
15. Bilski B. Needlestick injuries in nurses: the Poznan study. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2005; 18(3):251–4.
16. Adams D, Elliott TS. Safety-engineered needle devices: evaluation prior to introduction is essential. J Hosp Infect. 2011; 79(2):174–5.
Article
17. Hollnagel E. The ETTO principle: efficiency-thoroughness trade-off: why things that go right sometimes go wrong. Farnham, UK: Ashgate;2009.
18. McCormick RD, Meisch MG, Ircink FG, Maki DG. Epidemiology of hospital sharps injuries: a 14-year prospective study in the pre-AIDS and AIDS eras. Am J Med. 1991; 91(3B):301S–307S.
Article
19. Haiduven DJ, Phillips ES, Clemons KV, Stevens DA. Percutaneous injury analysis: consistent categorization, effective reduction methods, and future strategies. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995; 16:582–9.
Article
Full Text Links
  • HIR
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr