呼吁更简单的安全设备分类

Marilyn Hanschett RN, PhD, Julie Naunheim-Hipps BS, CRNI
{"title":"呼吁更简单的安全设备分类","authors":"Marilyn Hanschett RN, PhD, Julie Naunheim-Hipps BS, CRNI","doi":"10.2309/108300802775843112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A lthough significant progress has been made in devices designed to protect clinicians from sharpsrelated injuries, the danger of accidentally contracting a serious, and sometimes fatal disease has by no means been eliminated from the healthcare workplace. At the same time, nurses are expressing growing concern about the dangers associated with needlestick injuries. A recent survey conducted by the American Nurses Association reported that sharps-related injury now ranks third in the list of concerns that nurses have about health and safety in their workplace. It is disconcerting to find that nearly 20% of these nurses stated that their facilities provided absolutely no safety devices for use in injections, placement of IV catheters, or phlebotomy procedures. Of the remaining 80 percent surveyed, most stated that just a small number of safety devices were made available for procedures. Recent legislative and regulatory actions support the demands of clinicians for a safer workplace. In addition, the Joint Commission on Allied Health Organizations (JCAHO) has announced that it will cite accredited institutions that do not comply with all applicable needle safety standards. National compliance initiatives, combined with federal and state legislation, remain essential in assuring that healthcare workers have a choice in the types of safety devices they use. However, such large-scale efforts alone are not sufficient to mandate the relevant and sustainable improvements in clinical safety desired. As a result, clinicians must be individual advocates for change, and effective advocacy depends largely on a thorough knowlA Call for Easier Safety Device Classification Marilyn Hanschett, RN, PhD Julie Naunheim-Hipps, BS, CRNI","PeriodicalId":100853,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Access Devices","volume":"7 1","pages":"Pages 40-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2309/108300802775843112","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Call for Easier Safety Device Classification\",\"authors\":\"Marilyn Hanschett RN, PhD, Julie Naunheim-Hipps BS, CRNI\",\"doi\":\"10.2309/108300802775843112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A lthough significant progress has been made in devices designed to protect clinicians from sharpsrelated injuries, the danger of accidentally contracting a serious, and sometimes fatal disease has by no means been eliminated from the healthcare workplace. At the same time, nurses are expressing growing concern about the dangers associated with needlestick injuries. A recent survey conducted by the American Nurses Association reported that sharps-related injury now ranks third in the list of concerns that nurses have about health and safety in their workplace. It is disconcerting to find that nearly 20% of these nurses stated that their facilities provided absolutely no safety devices for use in injections, placement of IV catheters, or phlebotomy procedures. Of the remaining 80 percent surveyed, most stated that just a small number of safety devices were made available for procedures. Recent legislative and regulatory actions support the demands of clinicians for a safer workplace. In addition, the Joint Commission on Allied Health Organizations (JCAHO) has announced that it will cite accredited institutions that do not comply with all applicable needle safety standards. National compliance initiatives, combined with federal and state legislation, remain essential in assuring that healthcare workers have a choice in the types of safety devices they use. However, such large-scale efforts alone are not sufficient to mandate the relevant and sustainable improvements in clinical safety desired. As a result, clinicians must be individual advocates for change, and effective advocacy depends largely on a thorough knowlA Call for Easier Safety Device Classification Marilyn Hanschett, RN, PhD Julie Naunheim-Hipps, BS, CRNI\",\"PeriodicalId\":100853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vascular Access Devices\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 40-41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2309/108300802775843112\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vascular Access Devices\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1083008102705566\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Access Devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1083008102705566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
A Call for Easier Safety Device Classification
A lthough significant progress has been made in devices designed to protect clinicians from sharpsrelated injuries, the danger of accidentally contracting a serious, and sometimes fatal disease has by no means been eliminated from the healthcare workplace. At the same time, nurses are expressing growing concern about the dangers associated with needlestick injuries. A recent survey conducted by the American Nurses Association reported that sharps-related injury now ranks third in the list of concerns that nurses have about health and safety in their workplace. It is disconcerting to find that nearly 20% of these nurses stated that their facilities provided absolutely no safety devices for use in injections, placement of IV catheters, or phlebotomy procedures. Of the remaining 80 percent surveyed, most stated that just a small number of safety devices were made available for procedures. Recent legislative and regulatory actions support the demands of clinicians for a safer workplace. In addition, the Joint Commission on Allied Health Organizations (JCAHO) has announced that it will cite accredited institutions that do not comply with all applicable needle safety standards. National compliance initiatives, combined with federal and state legislation, remain essential in assuring that healthcare workers have a choice in the types of safety devices they use. However, such large-scale efforts alone are not sufficient to mandate the relevant and sustainable improvements in clinical safety desired. As a result, clinicians must be individual advocates for change, and effective advocacy depends largely on a thorough knowlA Call for Easier Safety Device Classification Marilyn Hanschett, RN, PhD Julie Naunheim-Hipps, BS, CRNI
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Desirable Properties for Vascular Catheter Materials: A Review of Silicone and Polyurethane Materials in IV Catheters Management Issues Surrounding Venous Access in Disorders of Coagulation von Willebrand's Disease Case Presentation von Willebrand's Disease Case Presentation A Retrospective Evaluation of the Timeliness of Physician Initiated PICC Referrals: A Continuous Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement Study Assessing catheter performance: Four years of tracking patient outcomes of midline, midclavicular and PICC line program What's Physics Got To Do With It? A Review of the Physical Principles of Fluid Administration
×
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