A Comparison between the New and the Conventional Method for Recapping of Needles in a Hospital Setting


  •  Mohsen Masoodi    
  •  Haleh Chehrehgosha    
  •  Marjan Mokhtare    
  •  Amir Hossein Faghihi    
  •  Shahram Agah    

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Needle stick injury is a common and serious event despite training and education and preventive strategies. The common form of the needle stick among health care workers can be occurred while recapping of needle and it is important because of the risk of transferring infectious strains. With aim of reducing the needle stick injury we compared the results of a new recapping method as high dropping cover to a needle and then try to fix it for frequency of needle stick injury and impending to injury among a sample of nurses.

METHODS & MATERIAL: One hundred and fifty nurses from different hospital wards participated in the study. Both conventional method (holding syringe with needle attached in one hand, slip needle into the cap with using other hand) and the new method (high drop of cover over needle without slip with hand) were performed by each nurses (each one for 10 times) consecutively as rapidly possible under observation.

RESULTS: In this study, most of the needle stick injury belonged to the conventional method compared to the new method (8.0% versus 2.9%). It was accompanied with the higher rates of impending to injury (29.3% versus 18.0%). The rate of impending to injury in the conventional method was as one time in 15.3%, two times in 10.0% and three times in 4.0%, while one, two, and three times of impending to injury occurred in 12.9%, 4.3%, and 0.7%, respectively in the new method.

CONCLUSION: Described new method for recapping is superior to the conventional method leading lower needle stick injury and lower impending to injury.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9736
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9744
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

Google-based Impact Factor (2017): 1.84

h-index (June 2018): 32

i10-index (June 2018): 105

h5-index (June 2018): 23

h5-median(June 2018): 28

RG Journal impact: 1.26

Contact