sharps injury surveillance and prevention in massachusetts angela k. laramie, mph massachusetts...

40
Sharps Injury Surveillance and Prevention in Massachusetts Angela K. Laramie, MPH Massachusetts Sharps Injury Surveillance System Occupational Health Surveillance Program MNA June 2007

Upload: charla-obrien

Post on 25-Dec-2015

219 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Sharps Injury Surveillance and Prevention

in Massachusetts

Angela K. Laramie, MPHMassachusetts Sharps Injury Surveillance SystemOccupational Health Surveillance ProgramMNAJune 2007

Background

• Risk of being exposed to HBV, HCV, and HIV

• Risk of infection for:HBV 6% to 30%

(for those not immune to HBV)

HCV 1.8% (range 0% to 7%)

HIV 0.3%

Costs of sharps injuries

• Direct costs– includes cost of EH personnel, lab tests, HBV

immune globulin, HBV vaccine• ranges from $110 - $1,232

– Includes medical care after seroconversion• ranges from $32,000 - $500,000

• Indirect costs - difficult to quantify

Sharper images: Despite needlestick law, nonsafe sharps practices still go uncheckedBy Ed Frauenheim February 12, 2001 Nurse Week Photo: Courtesy of the White House

Timeline of Regulations

December 1998 Legislation filed by Massachusetts Nurses Association

August 2000 An Act Relative to Needlestick Injury Prevention (Massachusetts)

November 2000 Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act (Federal)

January 2001 OSHA revised Bloodborne pathogen standard

April 2001 MDPH regulations (included in hospital licensure regulations)

States with sharps legislation:

1998 2000 Ohio

California West Virginia Massachusetts

Minnesota New York

1999 Maine

Tennessee Georgia 2001

Maryland Iowa Arkansas

Texas New Hampshire Missouri

New Jersey Alaska Rhode Island

Connecticut Pennsylvania

As of June 2002Oklahoma

MDPH Sharps Injury Prevention Regulations

105 CMR 130.1001 et seq.

Requires hospitals to:

• Incorporate the use of safe needle / sharps devices into engineering and work practice controls

• Maintain a written exposure control plan

– with procedures for selecting safe devices

MDPH Sharps Injury Prevention Regulations

105 CMR 130.1001 et seq.

Requires hospitals to:• Maintain a Sharps Injury Log• Use data for continuous quality improvement• Report to MPDH annually (Annual Summary)

Requires MDPH to:• Establish an Advisory Committee• Develop a list of needleless systems

MDPH Sharps Injury Prevention Advisory Committee

• Mass Nurses Assoc.• Mass Hospital Assoc.• Mass Medical Society• UMass: Sustainable

Hospitals Project• NECOEM• Consumer Advocate

MDPH • Occupational Health

Surveillance• Bureau of Communicable

Disease Control• Division of Health Care

Quality

Objectives of the Sharps Injury Surveillance System

• Document magnitude of the problem and trends in sharps injuries among hospital workers overtime

• Identify departments, occupations, procedures, and hospitals where intervention is needed

• Identify devices associated with sharps injuries

• Facilitate sharing information among hospitals about successful programs and practices

Methods

• Population under surveillance: All health care workers in Massachusetts hospitals (acute and non-acute care) licensed by MDPH

• Reportable exposure incident: BBP exposure that is the result of events that pierce the skin or mucous membranes

• Reporting period: January 1 – December 31

• Coding structure is based on the CDC NaSH system

Annual Summary of Sharps Injuries Hospital: Massachusetts Department of Public Health License Number:Occupational Health Surveillance Program Hospital Contact:

Phone number:Year:

Use of the attached lists is encouraged when completing this form. *Required data elements for reporting to MDPH.

Sharps Injuries among Massachusetts Hospital Workers, 2002 -2004

2002 2003 2004

# of hospitals 101 99 99

% compliance 100% 100% 100%

# of injuries reported 3,413 3,327 3,276

Range of # of injuries reported 0 – 431 0 - 312 1-317

% injuries in acute care hospitals 97% 97% 97%

% injuries in teaching hospitals 40% 58% 59%

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers by Occupation, Massachusetts, 2002-2004, N=10,016

Nurse40%

Other / Not answered

3%

Physician32%

Technician19%

Other Medical Staff1%

Support Services

4%

Dental Staff1%

Sharps Injuries among Massachusetts Hospital Workers, 2002-2004

top 4 occupations

05

101520253035404550

Nurse Physician Technician SupportServices

2002N=3,413

2003N=3,327

2004N=3,276

Per

cent

age

of in

jurie

s

Sharps Injuries among Massachusetts Hospital Workers, 2002-2004

top 4 occupations

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Nurse Physician Technician SupportServices

2002N=3,413

2003N=3,327

2004N=3,276

# of

inju

ries

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers by Department, Massachusetts, 2002-2004, N=10,016

OR and Procedure

Rooms42%

Inpatient Units23%

ED8%

ICU8%

Laboratories5%

Outpatient Areas4%

Other Areas and Unknown / Not

Answered10%

Sharps Injuries among Massachusetts Hospital Workers, 2002-2004

top 4 departments

05

101520253035404550

OR InpatientUnits

ED ICU

2002N=3,413

2003N=3,327

2004N=3,276

Per

cent

age

of in

jurie

s

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers by Procedure or Purpose for which Device was Used, Massachusetts,

2002-2004, N=10,016

Unknown/ Not Answered

7%Other11%

To obtain body fluid or tissue

sample2%

Line Procedures9%

Making the incision

8%

Blood Procedures

19%

Injection23%

Suturing21%

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers by Device, Massachusetts, 2002-2004, N=10,016

Unknown/Not Answered

2%

Vacuum tube collection holder

/ needle5%

Hypodermic needle30%

Other hollow-bore needle

12%

Suture Needle21%

Scalpel7%

Glass1%

Other11%

Butterfly10%

Hollow bore needles

57%

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers by Conventional Devices, Massachusetts, 2002-2004, N=10,016

Unknown / Not answered

12%

Conventional59%

Safety29%

Sharps Injuries among Massachusetts Hospital Workers, 2002-2004

% safety devices

0102030405060708090

100

Safety Conventional Unknown/Notanswered

2002N=3,413

2003N=3,327

2004N=3,276

Per

cent

age

of in

jurie

s

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers by Device Involved in the Injury, Massachusetts, 2002-2004, N=10,016

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000H

ypo

der

mic

Su

ture

Bu

tterf

ly

Sca

lpel

Va

cuu

m t

ube

Gla

ss

Oth

er

H-B

Oth

er

Un

k /

No

t An

s

Device

Nu

mb

er o

f In

juri

es

Unknown/Not answered

Safety Device

Conventional Device

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers by Device - Standard v Safety, Massachusetts, 2002-2004

(excluding unknown)

0102030405060708090

100

Device

Per

cent

Standard Device Safety Device

Hypodermic Vacuum tubeButterfly Scalpel

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers by Department where Injury Occurred, Massachusetts, 2002-2004, N=10,016

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

Inpa

tien

t

OR

ICU

ED

Ou

tpat

ien

t

Lab

ora

tory

Oth

er

Un

kno

wn

Department

Nu

mb

er o

f In

juri

es

Unknown/Not answered

Safety Device

Conventional Device

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers with Hypodermic Needles by Procedure - Standard v Safety Device,

Massachusetts, 2002-2004, n=2,984

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Inje

ctio

n

Blo

od

pro

ced

ure

s

Lin

e P

roce

du

res

Ob

tain

tis

sue

sa

mp

le

Oth

er

Un

k /

No

t an

s

Procedure

Nu

mb

er o

f In

juri

es

Unknown/Not answered

Safety Device

Conventional Device

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers with Hypodermic Needles by Procedure – Conventional v Safety Device,

Massachusetts, 2002-2004, n=942

0

50

100

150200

250

300

350B

loo

d p

roce

du

res

Lin

e P

roce

du

res

Ob

tain

tis

sue

sa

mp

le

Oth

er

Un

k /

No

t an

s

Procedure

Nu

mb

er

of

Inju

rie

s

Unknown/Not answeredSafety DeviceConventional Device

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers in the OR by Device, Massachusetts, 2002, n=935

Vacuum tube collection holder

/ needle1%

Hypodermic needle12%

Other hollow-bore needle

9%

Suture Needle48%

Scalpel11%

Other17%

Unknown/Not Answered

1% Butterfly1%

Hollow bore needles

23%

Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers in the OR by Device: Conventional v. Safety, Massachusetts, 2002, n=935

0

100

200

300

400

500

Hyp

od

erm

ic n

eed

le

sutu

re n

eed

le

sca

lpe

l bla

de

oth

er

hollo

w b

ore

oth

er

/ un

k /

not

ans

Device

Nu

mb

er

of

Inju

rie

s

Unknown/Not answered

Safety device

Conventional device

Strengths of Massachusetts Program

• Census of hospitals

• Not biased by voluntary reporting

• Concordance with federal requirements

• Used by hospitals for continuous quality improvement

• Provides a mechanism for sharing information among hospitals

• Provides a model to be used in other settings

Annual Summary of Sharps Injuries Hospital: Massachusetts Department of Public Health License Number:Occupational Health Surveillance Program Hospital Contact:Use of the attached lists is encouraged when completing this form. Phone number:*Required data elements for reporting to MDPH. Year:

Data Limitations

• Rate of underreporting is unknown and likely varies by hospital/occupation– Underestimates magnitude

– Limits comparison among hospitals

• Limitations of denominator data

• Statewide data on specific devices is difficult to interpret without market share information

# of devices w/ safety features purchased

#

of

sharps

injuries

Response rate for device

evaluations

Timeliness of PEM

Level of under reporting

Conclusions

• Need to look beyond summary data

• Need better information about under-reporting

• Conversions: conventional → safety

→ first generation ↔ second…fourth generation

Conclusions• Patterns are similar to those found in NaSH and

EPINet

• Many standard devices are still in use; e.g. hypodermic needles

• Approximately half of injuries occur after use of the device; e.g. disposal issues and use of safety features

• Rate of participation may be driven by the ability to comply with multiple regulations at one time

Prevention

Elimination

Substitution

· suturing glues

· injection with needles alternative delivery of medications

Engineering controls

· IV systems needleless IV

· conventional needles SESIPs

(retractable, blunting, shielding, plastic)

PreventionAdministrative controls

· neutral zones in OR

· placement of sharps disposal containers

· purchasing policies

· reporting procedures

Personal Protective Equipment

· gloves, mask, gowns, goggles

Progress by Hospitals:

• Written inventory of devices• Increased conversion to safety devices• Review of safety devices• Committee to look at sharps related injuries• Committee to look at new devices• Involvement of staff in decision making• Centralized purchasing process• Improved post exposure management• Use of data in decision making• Reporting of near misses

Acknowledgements:

Phil Adamo, Evie Bain, Helene Bednarsh, Al DeMaria, Karen Daley, Tish Davis, Natalia Firsova, Catherine Galligan, Anuj Goel, Liz O’Connor, Gail Palmeri, Laurie Robert, Margaret Quinn, and Jim Ryan

This presentation is dedicated to Dr. James Ryan, for his passionate work to protect the health and safety of workers, particularly those in the healthcare field.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health

Occupational Health Surveillance Program

Angela Laramie, MPHSharps Injury Surveillance and Prevention

[email protected]

www.mass.gov/dph/ohsp