Needlestick injury incidence and reporting in Irish surgical trainees.

Fergus J McCabe, Niamh Dunne, Shane K Farrington, Robert P Piggott, Catherine Bossut, Tom McCarthy, Joseph M Queally
{"title":"Needlestick injury incidence and reporting in Irish surgical trainees.","authors":"Fergus J McCabe, Niamh Dunne, Shane K Farrington, Robert P Piggott, Catherine Bossut, Tom McCarthy, Joseph M Queally","doi":"10.1016/j.surge.2025.02.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Needlestick injuries (NSI) in healthcare workers are common and rising in Ireland. Surgical trainees are particularly at-risk of NSIs. The aim of this study was to assess the estimated NSIs suffered by Irish surgical trainees, the reporting behaviours of NSI and the perceived barriers to reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an anonymous, online survey of surgical trainees on the Irish surgical training programmes. Trainees were asked the estimated NSIs ever received, perceived NSI contributing factors, NSIs reported to occupational health, and perceived barriers to reporting of NSIs. Independent predictors of needlestick injury were assessed by ordinal logistic regression. Data analysis was performed with R, version 4.1.1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 73 participants, with 66 % male and a median age group of 30-34 years. The median year of surgical training was 4. All but one trainee reported an NSI prior, with the median 6 (range of 0 to over 20). On ordinal logistic regression, year of training was the only independent factor associated with greater reported NSIs (OR 1.32). Most NSIs were from a suture needle in the non-dominant hand. Time pressure (79%) and mental fatigue (78%) were the most frequently perceived contributory factors. Only 14% of participants report all NSIs. The time requirements (82%) and reporting pathway complexity (81%) were the primary listed reasons for non-reporting of NSIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite being at high risk of needlesticks and the associated risks, few surgical trainees report all needlestick injuries. Reporting pathways of needlestick injuries should be streamlined to encourage greater reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":49463,"journal":{"name":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2025.02.011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Needlestick injuries (NSI) in healthcare workers are common and rising in Ireland. Surgical trainees are particularly at-risk of NSIs. The aim of this study was to assess the estimated NSIs suffered by Irish surgical trainees, the reporting behaviours of NSI and the perceived barriers to reporting.

Methods: This was an anonymous, online survey of surgical trainees on the Irish surgical training programmes. Trainees were asked the estimated NSIs ever received, perceived NSI contributing factors, NSIs reported to occupational health, and perceived barriers to reporting of NSIs. Independent predictors of needlestick injury were assessed by ordinal logistic regression. Data analysis was performed with R, version 4.1.1.

Results: There were 73 participants, with 66 % male and a median age group of 30-34 years. The median year of surgical training was 4. All but one trainee reported an NSI prior, with the median 6 (range of 0 to over 20). On ordinal logistic regression, year of training was the only independent factor associated with greater reported NSIs (OR 1.32). Most NSIs were from a suture needle in the non-dominant hand. Time pressure (79%) and mental fatigue (78%) were the most frequently perceived contributory factors. Only 14% of participants report all NSIs. The time requirements (82%) and reporting pathway complexity (81%) were the primary listed reasons for non-reporting of NSIs.

Conclusion: Despite being at high risk of needlesticks and the associated risks, few surgical trainees report all needlestick injuries. Reporting pathways of needlestick injuries should be streamlined to encourage greater reporting.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its establishment in 2003, The Surgeon has established itself as one of the leading multidisciplinary surgical titles, both in print and online. The Surgeon is published for the worldwide surgical and dental communities. The goal of the Journal is to achieve wider national and international recognition, through a commitment to excellence in original research. In addition, both Colleges see the Journal as an important educational service, and consequently there is a particular focus on post-graduate development. Much of our educational role will continue to be achieved through publishing expanded review articles by leaders in their field. Articles in related areas to surgery and dentistry, such as healthcare management and education, are also welcomed. We aim to educate, entertain, give insight into new surgical techniques and technology, and provide a forum for debate and discussion.
期刊最新文献
Women in Irish orthopaedics - A review of female representation at the Irish Orthopaedic Association annual meeting over a 16-year period. List of editors Needlestick injury incidence and reporting in Irish surgical trainees. Reduction of carbon footprint is a benefit of the virtual interview. Weight changes following total hip and total knee arthroplasty - A systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1