{"id":858,"date":"2018-06-13T09:00:16","date_gmt":"2018-06-13T08:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.springboard.pro\/?p=858"},"modified":"2026-09-09T07:15:26","modified_gmt":"2026-09-09T07:15:26","slug":"safety-syringes","status":"publish","type":"blog","link":"https:\/\/www.sanner-group.com\/insights\/blog\/safety-syringes\/","title":{"rendered":"An Introduction to Needlestick Protection and Safety Syringes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The need<\/h2>\n

Needlestick injuries are second only to back injuries as a cause of injury to healthcare workers (HCW), with up to 1,000,000 cases estimated annually in the EU [1]. The risk transmission of blood-borne viruses has been shown to be around 1 in 3 if the patient is Hepatitis B Virus positive, 1 in 30 if Hepatitis C Virus positive and 1 in 300 if HIV positive [2, 3]. Even when infections are not transmitted such an injury can cause considerable fear and stress [4].<\/p>\n

In many cases, it is not feasible to eliminate injections or use another administration method as a substitute.\u00a0 Therefore, the hazard is most effectively handled by engineering solutions which separate those at risk from the sharps (Figure 1). Research by the UK\u2019s Health and Safety Executive has found that education and training related to safer sharps is only effective when combined with safer sharps devices [5] and the UK\u2019s Health Protection Agency recommends that Primary Care Trusts and hospitals adopt safety devices in place of conventional devices [2].\u00a0 In the US, the CDC estimated that up to 88% of sharps injuries in hospitals could be prevented by using safer medical devices [6].<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 1 – Hierarchy of hazard controls with increasing effectiveness\u00a0(Source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health<\/a>)<\/p>\n

The legal requirements<\/h2>\n

Many regulators around the world require needlestick protection, and others are in the process of implementing it.\u00a0 Examples are:<\/p>\n