Needle Stick Flu Injury Essay

Flames of evolution in patient care have been fanned into a wholesome revolution in the nature of nursing care due to the ever changing healthcare needs and demands of patients. This has led to a paradigm shift from generalized patient care to a patient centered approach. The increase in interaction and individualized patient management has improved healthcare delivery. However, on the flipside, this has not come with new challenges. Healthcare providers are increasingly being exposed to new health hazards as new and sophisticated treatment approaches are developed. Injuries due to sharps are of significance in nursing practice. The International Healthcare Workers Safety Center (2010) reports that an average of 27.97 per 100 licensed beds sharps injuries occurred in 2007 while in 2008 17.2 per 100 licensed beds sharps injuries were recorded. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010), 385,000 healthcare workers are injured due to sharps annually in the United States. This puts the healthcare personnel at risk of contracting infections such as Hepatitis C and B from contaminated objects. In regard to this concept, this paper will explore sharps safety at the clinical site with a view of using evidence based practice to creating awareness on the need for sharps safety in hospital settings.

Over the last several years, a wide variety of health care organizations have been facing a number of challenges. This is because of pressures associated with: rising costs, increasing demands and larger numbers of patients. For many facilities this has created a situation where patient safety issues are often overlooked. This is because the staff is facing tremendous amounts of pressure, long hours and more patients. The combination of these factors has created a situation where a variety of hospitals need to improve their patient safety procedures. In the case of Sharp Memorial Hospital, they are focused on addressing these issues through different strategies. To fully understand how they are able to achieve these objectives requires looking at: specific ways the organization has responded to the crisis in medical errors, their definition of patient safety, the causes of errors, systematic barriers and transformations that have been adopted. Together, these different elements will provide the greatest insights as to how the facility is coping with the crisis in patient safety.

It is clear that double-gloving provides certain benefits in terms of protection from healthcare workers’ hands and potential pathogens, but what is not clear is whether protecting one’s hands is enough to have a meaningful impact on reducing the spread nosocomial diseases. In a study that showed significantly decreased presence of virus on the hands of healthcare workers who were double-gloved vs. single-gloved, the presence of virus on the clothes worn under

The different types of risks applicable to health care settings include clients/patients and HCW’s who may become infected with communicable diseases or have wounds that carry infection. HCW’s handle equipment, materials and waste products that carry infection, and can therefore be infected during the course of their duties, and potentially infect other people who also frequent the same environment.

In an article entitled “Effect of single- versus double- gloving on virus transfer to health care workers’ skin and clothing during removal of personal protective equipment”, which was published in the American Journal of Infection Control in August, 2011, authors Lisa Casanova, William Rutala, David Weber, and Mark Sobsey performed a controlled study of 18 volunteer health care workers, tracking both their adherence to CDC guidelines for donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE), as well as the spread of bacterial contaminants the health care workers were exposed to while performing routine patient care. The purpose of this study was to identify whether airborne contaminants were transferred to heath care workers’ hands and uniforms less often with double-gloving than with single-gloving. Though this study was performed on a very small sample of health care workers at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, the results of the study showed that there was far less contamination of participants’ hands after utilizing double-gloving standards than with single-gloving.

Gloves, goggles, masks and gowns are minimum recommended requirements of PPE in any clinical environment where contact with blood or bodily fluid is likely (HSE 2011). Although wearing gloves does not prevent injury. It minimises exposure and cross contamination, reducing the risk of infection (AFPP 2011). The healthcare professional in the diary decided not to wear gloves because they catch on her rings and tear. This suggests that the rings have jagged edges or stones, which potentially could cause injury to the patient and also pose as an infection risk. Professional guidelines also dictate that staff should be bare below the

Among reviewing CNAs at a long-term care facility, it was seen that some CNA’s did not take off their gloves between giving perineal care of a patient after the patient used the bathroom and the CNA reached for the patient’s attire to put on the patient for that day. The CNA put every patient at risk of contracting the infection and the patients clothes could have became a source of C-diff. There are many cases similar to the one above where health workers are in a rush and do not perform their job/skills that they have been taught correctly. Health workers being in a rush also is due to shortage of staff. The CNAs at the long term facility discussed in this paragraph work a 9:1 ratio, which causes challenges for the health workers to give quality care to the patients.

A deficiency in adherence to basic infection control guidelines that prohibit the reuse of needles, syringes, and IV tubing is evidenced by the incidence of outbreaks of healthcare-associated infections (HIAs) that still continue to occur. Most of these deficiencies occur outside of hospital settings. Since 1999, the CDC has reported over 30 outbreaks of viral hepatitis and other HIAs which have required notification of 125,000 Americans of their possible exposure to infectious disease. Of that 125,000 people, 448 people actually became infected with HBV or HCV. In 2001, a private physician’s office in New York was responsible for placing 2,192 patients at risk with unsafe injections involving reused syringes and medication vials and resulted in 19 cases of HCV infections. In Oklahoma, an outpatient pain clinic infected 31 patients with Hepatitis B and 71 with Hepatitis C in 2002 which required notification of 908 patients of their potential exposure. In this particular Oklahoma outbreak, a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) was reported to have routinely prepared a needle and syringe for

The purpose of this paper is intended to provide a review of the above formulated topic and backed up by research compiled through scholarly peer-reviewed literature as well as supportive statistical from entities such as: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), World Health Organization (WHO), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Further consideration was given to areas within OSHA Bloodborne Pathogen Standards that may have contributed to the mitigation of injuries in healthcare settings as they relate to occupational percutaneous injuries. Scholarly peer-reviewed literature and journals dating from 2002 to 2015 obtained from the University of West Florida library database were used to validate the findings on the impact of needlestick injuries since the BBP revisions were enacted while further comprehending its relation needlestick injuries and potential exposure to bloodborne pathogens.

Patient safety should be on the minds of everyone working in a healthcare oriented environment. According to the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 report, “To Err is Human”, the number of people who die from hospital mistakes reach up to 98,000. The report was possibly under-estimated even with that high number. The latest numbers are dramatically higher than previously known. The Journal of Patient Safety published a report that is shockingly high. This new study states that preventable adverse events lead to the deaths of 210,000-400,000 patients per year. These numbers would make medical errors the third leading cause of death, behind heart disease and cancer. I am going outline three primary threats to patient safety, and preventive measures. The top three threats among multitudes I chose are health care associated infections (HAIs), patient handoffs, and health information technology. Clinical checklists are one of the major preventive measures I looked at.

Awareness towards operation safety issues has been under spotlight after 33-year-old injected with a skin-cleanser instead of an epidural

Needle stick and sharps injuries are the dangerous hazards for any medical personnel. Sharp objects can contain pathogens like hepatitis virus, HIV, which pose death risk. The additional explosion to the blood-borne pathogen includes sudden bleeding or wound care. Immunization is a required procedure, but it only can protect from hepatitis B illnesses. The company requires having a vaccination against hep B. Some research stated that most healthcare workers don’t follow standards and protocols and don’t report the injuries. All our workers need to report any injuries, which related to blood-borne pathogens. The organization establish practice control and reduce worker’s exposure by providing personal protective clothing and equipment, and specialized

Infection control is very important in the health care profession. Health care professionals, who do not practice proper infection control, allow themselves to become susceptible to a number of infections. Among the most dreaded of these infections are: hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Another infection which has more recently increased in prevalence is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). These infections are all treated differently. Each infection has its own symptoms, classifications, and incubation periods. These infections are transmitted in very similar fashions, but they do not all target the same population.

Testing consisted of taking health care worker’s blood samples, performing follow-ups and testing for HIV antibodies every 3 to 4 weeks. After three years of this conducted study, a total of four hundred and seventy-six incidences were accounted for due to exposure to blood and body fluids. This is a low incidence report compared to the United States reporting six million healthcare workers report to have been exposed to blood and body fluids from needle stick injuries alone. This low incidence report could be contributed due to healthcare workers under-reporting their incidences. I was surprised to find out that only fifty-eight point four percent of healthcare workers used personal protective equipment (PPE), such as masks, gowns, and gloves when using needles and sharp objects. Furthermore, immediately following exposure to blood-borne pathogens, employee’s first course of action was running water to clean out the exposed area. Risks for developing blood-borne infectious diseases increase due to these injuries and improperly decontaminating the exposed

Needlestick injury is the piercing of skin by a needle which was in contact with blood, tissue, or other body fluid before the exposure. It’s very important that appropriate precautions are taken to prevent needlestick injuries to avoid any untreatable blood-borne diseases. The three common blood-borne diseases that have infected healthcare workers after a needlestick injuries are Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. During the inspection, nurses who were assigned to draw blood were seen handling the needlestick carelessly, leaving our organization concern about the safety of the patients. This organization’s goal is to provide equipment and support to developing and slightly developed countries with