Zahedan J Res Med Sci
Zahedan J Res Med Sci

article information

Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: Vol.25, issue 4; e131599
published online: August 18, 2023
article type: Research Article
received: September 10, 2022
accepted: January 25, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/zjrms-131599
Crossmark

Frequency of Needle Wound Injury (Needle-stick) and Its Related Factors in Nursing Staff in Sirjan in 2020

authors:

avatar Abdol Rahim Biojmajd ORCID 1 , avatar Rahimeh Khajoei ORCID 2 , avatar Mohadeseh Balvardi ORCID 3 , avatar Zahra Imani-Goghary ORCID 2 , avatar Zahra Izad-Abadi ORCID 2 , *

Student Research Committee, Sirjan School of Medical Sciences, Sirjan, Iran
Department of Nursing, Sirjan School of Medical Sciences, Sirjan, Iran
Department of Public Health, Sirjan School of Medical Sciences, Sirjan, Iran

how to cite: Biojmajd A R, Khajoei R, Balvardi M, Imani-Goghary Z, Izad-Abadi Z. Frequency of Needle Wound Injury (Needle-stick) and Its Related Factors in Nursing Staff in Sirjan in 2020. Zahedan J Res Med Sci. 2023;25(4):e131599. https://doi.org/10.5812/zjrms-131599.

Abstract

Background:

Nurses are exposed to blood-borne infections such as hepatitis B (HB), hepatitis C (HC), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) through needle-stick injuries (NSIs).

Objectives:

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of needle sticks and their related factors among nurses in the hospitals of Sirjan.

Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, 312 nurses were enrolled by census. Data were collected using demographic characteristics and a needle-stick information questionnaire. Descriptive and analytical tests (chi-square or Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression model) were used to analyze data.

Results:

Out of 312 nurses participating in the study, 189 (60.6%) had experienced NSIs during the last year. The most common objects for NSIs were syringes and needles (35.4%), and the most common cause of NSIs was recapping (45.4%). In this study, 82% of needle-stick nurses were forced to work overtime. Ages of 20 - 29 years (odds ratio (OR) = 3.94, 95%CI: 1.12 - 13.84; P = 0.032), work experience between 5 - 10 years (OR = 2.50, CI: 1.12 - 5.57; P = 0.02), HB vaccination (OR = 0.26, CI: 0.07 - 0.98; P = 0.04) were significantly associated with rates of needle-sticks.

Conclusions:

Due to the high frequency of NSIs among the nursing staff and to reduce these injuries, using safety devices, especially in the emergency ward, providing a calm and stress-free environment for staff, reducing the number of night shifts and workload, teaching safety principles and standards to young nurses and supporting nurses who experience NSIs were advised.

1. Background

Needle-stick injuries (NSIs) are penetrating wounds caused by a needle or other sharp object potentially contaminated with the body fluid of another person (1). Needle sticks are usually caused by objects such as subcutaneous needles, needles used for bleeding, and intravenous injections (2). Needle-stick injuries are the biggest occupational hazard for healthcare staff, especially nurses (3). NSIs can transmit blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis B (HB), hepatitis C (HC), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), gonorrhea, syphilis, malaria, etc. (4). Hepatitis B and HC viruses and HIV are the three most common blood-borne pathogens mentioned in studies (5, 6). Needle-stick is a common cause of blood-borne diseases among nurses, as previous studies have shown 33.7% of Ethiopian nurses (7), 37% of nurses in the United Kingdom (8), and 70.3% of nurses in Nepal (9) experienced NSIs. Worldwide consequences of NSIs are around 66,000 HBV, 16,000 HCV, and 1,000 HIV infections annually (3). Previous studies in Iran have shown that every healthcare staff experiences NSIs between one and four times yearly (10).

According to a study, organizational factors (reporting policies), behavioral factors (needle recapping), and engineering factors (designing devices and tools) are important causes of NSIs (11). Some other reasons for NSIs are sudden patient movement during injection; situational factors during childbirth; handling specimens; collecting hospital waste, and lack of personal protective equipment (12).

According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention of Iran, only 10% of staff with NSIs reported their injury (11). The reported rate of NSIs is higher in some developing countries (13). Reasons for not reporting NSIs include high occupancy, lack of awareness, and fear of some consequences, such as job loss (14), which may lead to an increase in blood-borne disease rates, such as AIDS and HB.

Estimating the NSI rate and related factors in each geographical area helps local health policymakers to control its prevalence. No previous studies have assessed the prevalence of NSIs among nursing staff and its related factors in Sirjan. On the other hand, the high prevalence of NSIs among nurses, high costs of NSIs-related infections, and probable transmission of these infections to others led our research team to assess the prevalence of NSIs among nursing staff and the factors affecting it in Sirjan in 2020.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Sample Size

This cross-sectional study was performed on nurses working in the hospitals of Sirjan (from September to October 2020) to investigate the prevalence of NSIs and some related factors. Inclusion criteria were having at least one year of work experience in a hospital, willingness to participate, and having a bachelor’s degree or higher in nursing. The needle-stick recall period was considered one year, such as in a similar study (14). Finally, 312 nurses were included in the census method. Nurses on long-term leave (more than 6 months) were excluded from the study.

2.2. Data Collection and Instruments

The tools used in this study include:

(1) Demographic characteristics: age, sex, marital status, educational degree, work experience, working shifts, nurse position, and type of employment;

(2) The needle-stick questionnaire: The Needle-stick Questionnaire, developed and used by Ghanei Gheshlagh et al. (14), evaluates the status of the needle stick and the factors associated with this injury. It consists of 2 parts. The first part includes 20 questions for assessing: the status of NSIs, previous education about NSIs, awareness about diseases transmitted by blood-borne and body fluids, previous HB vaccination, injurious objects, and activities. The second part of the questionnaire consists of 10 yes or no questions, which assesses the reasons for not reporting NSIs. The test-retest method was used for assessing the reliability of quantitative data, with reliability ranging from 0.74 to 0.78. For qualitative data, the Kappa agreement coefficient had been reported as 0.84 (14).

To reduce errors, the participants were informed about the aim of the study, and they were assured of the confidentiality of their data before the study.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables were then presented as the numbers (percent). Analytical statistics (chi-square or Fisher’s exact test and univariate and multiple logistic regression model) also were used to compare prevalence among different groups and indicate risk factors associated with NSIs using SPSS-19. The significant level was set at 0.05.

3. Results

The mean ± SD of nurses’ age was 33.8 ± 7.15 years, and the mean ± SD of nurses’ work experience was 8.6 ± 6.3 years. Nurses’ demographic information and factors associated with NSIs are shown in Table 1. According to the chi-square test, nurses with younger ages and lower work experience (P = 0.001), nurses who had been vaccinated against HB (P = 0.021), and nurses who were knowledgeable about AIDS (P = 0.038) were more likely to experience NSIs.

Table 1.

Nurses ‘Demographic Information and Factors Associated with Needle-stick Injuries

VariablesNo. (%)P a
Age (y)0.001
20 - 30119 (38.1)
30 - 40127 (40.7)
> 4066 (21.2)
Gender0.485
Female266 (85.3)
Male46 (14.7)
Overtime hours0.099
< 40112 (35.9)
40 - 8012 (40.1)
80 - 12056 (17.9)
> 12019 (6.1)
Work experience (y)0.001
≤ 5129 (41.3)
5 - 1056 (17.9)
>10127 (40.7)
Education0.141
B.Sc.292 (93.6)
M.Sc.20 (6.4)
Employment status0.061
Provisional73 (23.4)
Contractual60 (19.2)
Permanent179 (57.4)
Awareness of hepatitis disease0.568
Yes170 (89.9)
No19 (10.1)
Awareness about AIDS0.038
Yes169 (89.4)
No20 (10.6)
Interested in nursing0.125
Yes161 (85.2)
No28 (14.8)
Lack of nurses staff0.729
Yes64 (33.9)
No125 (66.1)
Overtime0.171
Mandatory248 (79.5)
Optional64 (20.5)
Hospital ward0.399
Emergency42 (22.2)
Internal38 (20.1)
Surgery28 (14.8)
Pediatric20 (10.6)
ICU21 (11.1)
CCU23 (12.2)
Operating room11 (5.8)
Neurology and psychiatry6 (3.2)
Interested in workplace0.473
Yes20 (10.6)
No169 (89.4)
Hepatitis B vaccination0.021
Yes172 (91.0)
No17 (9.0)

a P values were calculated by χ2 or Fisher’s exact test.

Most of the participants (60.6%) reported one or more cases of NSIs; most of the NSIs are caused by needles (35.4%) during recapping (45.5%) and venipuncture (24.3%). Most of the injured nurses were working in the emergency department (22.2%), and most of them (65.6%) reported NSIs during the night shifts. Other situations related to NSIs are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Prevalence and Situations Related to Needle-stick Injuries

VariablesNo. (%)
NSIs
Yes189 (60.6)
No123 (39.4)
Number of NSIs per year
1129 (68.3)
2 - 348 (25.4)
> 312 (6.3)
The first action after needling
No action14 (7.4)
Wound area pressure and bleeding64 (33.9)
Wash the wound area111 (58.7)
The shift in which needle sticks occur
Morning46 (24.3)
Evening19 (10.1)
Night124 (65.6)
The person being blamed
Himself134 (70.9)
Colleague26 (13.8)
Patient29 (15.3)
Number of reports
No times94 (49.7)
172 (38.1)
2 - 318 (9.6)
> 35 (2.6)
Kind of an injurious device
Suture needle25 (13.2)
Syringe needle67 (35.4)
Venipuncture needle12 (6.3)
Glucometer needle13 (6.9)
Angio catheter24 (12.7)
Infected ampule pockets48 (25.4)
Cause of the needle stick
Recapping86 (45.5)
Veins46 (24.3)
Blood sampling35 (16.9)
Stitching25 (13.2)

Abbreviation: NSI, needle-stick injury.

Based on the results of multiple logistic regression (Table 3), the odds of NSIs in nurses aged 20 - 29 years were 3.9 (OR = 3.94, CI:1.12 - 13.84; P = 0.032) times nurses older than 40 years. The odds of NSIs in nurses with 5 to 10 years of work experience were 2.5 (OR = 2.50, CI: 1.12 - 5.57; P = 0.02) times nurses with more than 10 years of work experience. Also, the odds of NSIs in nurses vaccinated were 74% (OR = 0.26, CI: 0.07 - 0.98; P = 0.04) less than in nurses who had not.

Table 3.

Risk Factors Associated with the Occurrence of Needle-stick Injuries

VariablesUnivariable OR (CI 95%)P ValueMultiple OR (CI 95%)P Value
Age (y)
20 - 294.45 (2.34 - 8.46)0.003.94 (1.12 - 13.84)0.032
30 - 392.52 (1.37 - 4.65)0.0031.75 (0.85 - 3.61)0.12
>40Ref.Ref.
Work experience (y)
≤ 50.02 (1.81 - 5.08)0.001.09 (0.36 - 3.25)0.87
5 - 103.80 (1.89 - 7.65)0.002.50 (1.12 - 5.57)0.02
>10Ref.Ref.
Vaccination
Yes0.25 (0.07 - 0.88)0.030.26 (0.07 - 0.98)0.04
NoRef.Ref.
Lack of nurses
Yes0.91 (0.57 - 1.48)0.720.89 (0.52 - 1.50)0.67
NoRef.Ref.
Overtime
Yes1.48 (0.85 - 2.58)0.161.30 (0.70 - 2.41)0.40
NoRef.Ref.
Awareness about AIDS
Yes0.35 (0.13 - 0.98)0.040.50 (0.16 - 1.52)0.22
NoRef.Ref.
Awareness of hepatitis disease
Yes0.79 (0.35 - 1.76)0.562.14 (0.79 - 5.77)0.13
NoRef.Ref.

Abbreviation: Ref, reference category; OR, odds ratio.

In this study, 49.7% of nurses with NSIs did not report their injuries. The three most reasons for that were mentioned as considering the injurious device noninfectious (52.1%), busy schedule (43.6%), and the patient hasn’t a known infection (28.7%). More information is in Table 4 (Some nurses chose more than one reason).

Table 4.

Frequency of Factors Related to Non-reporting Needle-stick (n = 94)

VariablesNo. (%)
No previous use of the device for the patient High busy49 (52.1)
High busy41 (43.6)
Assume that the patient or source of infection does not have a specific infection or disease27 (28.7)
Injury only affects you9 (9.6)
No special work is done in case of reporting8 (8.5)
be ashamed6 (6.4)
Lack of knowledge of the relevant follow-up process6 (6.4)
Fear of being labeled a disease5 (5.3)
Fear of losing a job3 (3.2)

4. Discussion

This study showed that the frequency of NSIs in nurses of Sirjan hospitals was 60.6%. This result is consistent with the results of previous studies in Pakistan (66.3%) and China (64.9%) (15, 16) and much higher than the Ethiopian (33.7%) and Australian (17.7%) studies (7, 17). It is also a little lower than studies in South Korea (70.4%) and Nepal (70.3%) (9, 11), so the results show that the prevalence of NSI was high among our participants.

Based on the results, age and work experience are significant factors in the occurrence of NSIs, as the younger the age, the higher the rate of NSI. In similar studies, NSI rates were also reported higher at younger ages (7, 18). The results of this study, in line with other studies, mentioned low work experience as an effective factor in the higher prevalence of NSIs (14, 15, 19). In another study, half of all exposure cases occurred within the first 3 years of work (20). Younger nurses are at greater risk of NSIs due to low work experience, lower practical skills, and high workloads. Older nurses with more work experience are at lower risk, which may be related to their skills and job positions as managers, therefore, less direct contact with patients and injurious devices.

The study’s results showed that 91% of the nurses with NSIs had received the HB vaccine. These results align with the previous studies in Iran (14, 21, 22). Also, the logistic regression model results showed that vaccinated nurses reported NSIs 0.2 times more than nurses who had not. In another study, the chance of NSIs in people receiving hepatitis booster doses was about two times higher than others (15); receiving the hepatitis vaccine may have led to false assurance and carelessness among healthcare workers.

Recapping was the most reported activity leading to NSIs in the current study, as in other similar studies (7, 9, 19, 23), which may be related to lack of knowledge, lack of needle-crushing machines, mandatory hospital instructions, and the high workload of staff (24).

As the results showed, nurses forced to work overtime are more likely to suffer from NSIs. These results are consistent with a previous study (25). In another study, the injury rate was reported to be 4.2 times higher in people who worked more than 35 hours per week and 5 times higher in those who did more than 10 injections per day (26).

In this study, like some other studies, the syringe needles were the main injurious devices (14, 27, 28) related to their common usage. Results of the study showed that nurses who suffered from NSIs blamed themselves (70.9%), which is consistent with the results of other studies (29, 30).

The highest incidence of NSIs in this study was at night shifts (65.6%), similar to previous studies’ results (2, 27). Nurses, physicians, and hospital staff have rotating shifts and irregular sleep, which may reduce general alertness, cause fatigue and drowsiness, and increase the incidence of injuries, such as NSIs and medical errors (31), which may incur irreparable problems for patients and themselves. In some studies, the prevalence of NSIs was reported higher on morning shifts (32, 33), which may be related to high workload during this shift.

In this study, the emergency ward nurses also faced more NSI events than others, which could be due to the emergency and stressful situation of this ward (7). In a study, 40.3% of nurses experienced emergency NSIs (34). In another study, the risk of NSIs in the emergency ward was reported 3 times higher than in other wards (35). Wang et al. reported a direct relationship between stressful situations and increasing the risk of NSIs among nurses (36). Emergency nurses usually provide care to critically ill patients; this situation and long working hours, rotating shifts, overcrowding, and constant contact with clients in critical conditions (emerging disease and death) are the most important issues that may expose them to NSIs (37).

Failure to report NSIs is one of the challenges beyond injured staff and authorities. Reporting injury leads to post-exposure prophylaxis, early detection of probable infection, and provide effective treatment (38). Common reasons for not reporting NSIs are disease phobia or the probability of losing a job (39). According to the results, 49.7% of needle-stick victims did not report their injuries. Costigliola et al. stated that one-third of nurses did not report their NSIs (40). A systematic review in Iran reported that more than half of the NSIs victims do not report their injuries and deprive themselves of treatments (41). The appropriate reaction of hospital authorities to victims plays an important role in reducing this problem (41). Inadequate knowledge and considering the injury an unimportant event cause staff to ignore the NSIs and not report them (39, 40).

In the present study, the most common reasons for not reporting NSIs were mentioned as considering needle noninfectious and nurses’ busy schedules, which was consistent with previous studies (10, 42). Therefore, nurses should be educated to report NSIs as a habit by knowing their importance, and also, they should support in this regard.

4.1. Conclusions

In the present study, more than half of the nurses experienced NSIs. In order to reduce these injuries, hospital managers should assess needle-stick-related factors and provide safety devices and a calm and stress-free environment for staff. Hospital managers should teach safety principles to young nurses and support nurses who are injured to create a culture of reporting NSIs.

References

  • 1.

    Galougahi MH. Evaluation of needle stick injuries among nurses of Khanevadeh Hospital in Tehran. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2010;15(4):172-7. [PubMed ID: 21589791]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3093184].

  • 2.

    Kebede A, Gerensea H. Prevalence of needle stick injury and its associated factors among nurses working in public hospitals of Dessie town, Northeast Ethiopia, 2016. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):413. [PubMed ID: 29954450]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6022488]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3529-9.

  • 3.

    Memish ZA, Assiri AM, Eldalatony MM, Hathout HM, Alzoman H, Undaya M. Risk analysis of needle stick and sharp object injuries among health care workers in a tertiary care hospital (Saudi Arabia). J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2013;3(3):123-9. [PubMed ID: 23932054]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7320367]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jegh.2013.03.004.

  • 4.

    Rodrigues C. Needle stick injuries & the health care worker--the time to act is now. Indian J Med Res. 2010;131:384-6. [PubMed ID: 20418551].

  • 5.

    Himmelreich H, Rabenau HF, Rindermann M, Stephan C, Bickel M, Marzi I, et al. The management of needlestick injuries. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110(5):61-7. [PubMed ID: 23437024]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3576594]. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2013.0061.

  • 6.

    Riess EA, Weller CE. Method and devices for its employ for reducing disease-transfer risks. Mountain View, USA: Google Patents; 2014.

  • 7.

    Abadiga M, Mosisa G, Abate Y. Magnitude of Needlestick and Sharp Injury and Its Associated Factors Among Nurses Working at Health Institutions in Western Ethiopia, 2020. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2020;13:1589-602. [PubMed ID: 32982517]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7501985]. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S254641.

  • 8.

    Saia M, Hofmann F, Sharman J, Abiteboul D, Campins M, Burkowitz J, et al. Needlestick injuries: incidence and cost in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Biomed Int. 2010;1(2):41-9.

  • 9.

    Singh B, Paudel B, Kc S. Knowledge and Practice of Health Care Workers regarding Needle Stick Injuries in a Tertiary Care Center of Nepal. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2015;13(51):230-3. [PubMed ID: 27180369]. https://doi.org/10.3126/kumj.v13i3.16813.

  • 10.

    Vahedi MS, Ahsan B, Ardalan M, Shahsavari S. [Prevalence and Causes of needle stick injuries, in medical personnels of Kurdistan University’s hospitals and dealing with such injuries due to contaminated sharp tools in 1383]. Sci J Kurdistan Univ Medical Sci. 2006;11(2):43-50. Persian.

  • 11.

    Cho E, Lee H, Choi M, Park SH, Yoo IY, Aiken LH. Factors associated with needlestick and sharp injuries among hospital nurses: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(8):1025-32. [PubMed ID: 22854116]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3996454]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.07.009.

  • 12.

    Motaarefi H, Mahmoudi H, Mohammadi E, Hasanpour-Dehkordi A. Factors Associated with Needlestick Injuries in Health Care Occupations: A Systematic Review. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(8):IE01-4. [PubMed ID: 27656466]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5028444]. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/17973.8221.

  • 13.

    Bijani B, Sotudehmanesh S, Mohammadi N. [Epidemiological features of needle stick injuries among nursing staff]. Journal of Guilan University of Medical Sciences. 2011;20(77):61-8. Persian.

  • 14.

    Ghanei Gheshlagh R, Zahednezhad H, Shabani F, Hameh M, Ghahramani M, Farajzadeh M, et al. [Needle Sticks Injuries and its Related Factors among Nurses]. Iran J Nurs. 2014;27(89):21-9. Perain. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijn.27.89.21.

  • 15.

    Afridi AA, Kumar A, Sayani R. Needle stick injuries--risk and preventive factors: a study among health care workers in tertiary care hospitals in Pakistan. Glob J Health Sci. 2013;5(4):85-92. [PubMed ID: 23777725]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4776811]. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v5n4p85.

  • 16.

    Zhang X, Gu Y, Cui M, Stallones L, Xiang H. Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Nurses at a Teaching Hospital in China. Workplace Health Saf. 2015;63(5):219-25. [PubMed ID: 26031696]. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079915580035.

  • 17.

    Smith DR, Smyth W, Leggat PA, Wang RS. Needlestick and sharps injuries among nurses in a tropical Australian hospital. Int J Nurs Pract. 2006;12(2):71-7. [PubMed ID: 16529593]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2006.00553.x.

  • 18.

    Saadeh R, Khairallah K, Abozeid H, Al Rashdan L, Alfaqih M, Alkhatatbeh O. Needle Stick and Sharp Injuries Among Healthcare Workers: A retrospective six-year study. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2020;20(1):e54-62. [PubMed ID: 32190370]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7065705]. https://doi.org/10.18295/squmj.2020.20.01.008.

  • 19.

    Hanafi MI, Mohamed AM, Kassem MS, Shawki M. Needlestick injuries among health care workers of University of Alexandria Hospitals. East Mediterr Health J. 2011;17(1):26-35. [PubMed ID: 21735798].

  • 20.

    Jahan S. Epidemiology of needlestick injuries among health care workers in a secondary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med. 2005;25(3):233-8. [PubMed ID: 16119525]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6147994]. https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2005.233.

  • 21.

    Moradi A, Mostafavi E, Moradi A. The prevalence and causes of needle stick injuries among the primary health care workers of Bahar city, Hamadan Province. Iran Occup Health. 2010;7(2):39-42.

  • 22.

    Nejadghaderi M, Safizadeh H, Khanjani N. [The Knowledge and Practice of Medical Staff about Needle Injuries In Rafsanjan's Ali-ebne-Abitaleb Hospital, Iran]. Health and Development Journal. 2012;1(1):1-10. Persian.

  • 23.

    Abebe AM, Kassaw MW, Shewangashaw NE. Prevalence of needle-stick and sharp object injuries and its associated factors among staff nurses in Dessie referral hospital Amhara region, Ethiopia, 2018. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):840. [PubMed ID: 30486872]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6263535]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3930-4.

  • 24.

    Ghanei Gheshlagh R, Fallahi Khoshknab M. Needle stick injuries, culture of silence: a systematic review. Journal of Health Promotion Management. 2015;4(1):31-50.

  • 25.

    Gershon RR, Pearson JM, Sherman MF, Samar SM, Canton AN, Stone PW. The prevalence and risk factors for percutaneous injuries in registered nurses in the home health care sector. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(7):525-33. [PubMed ID: 19216006]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.10.022.

  • 26.

    Kakizaki M, Ikeda N, Ali M, Enkhtuya B, Tsolmon M, Shibuya K, et al. Needlestick and sharps injuries among health care workers at public tertiary hospitals in an urban community in Mongolia. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:184. [PubMed ID: 21672224]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3125346]. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-184.

  • 27.

    Balouchi A, Shahdadi H, Ahmadidarrehsima S, Rafiemanesh H. The Frequency, Causes and Prevention of Needlestick Injuries in Nurses of Kerman: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(12):DC13-5. [PubMed ID: 26816889]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4717808]. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/16729.6965.

  • 28.

    Azap A, Ergonul O, Memikoglu KO, Yesilkaya A, Altunsoy A, Bozkurt GY, et al. Occupational exposure to blood and body fluids among health care workers in Ankara, Turkey. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33(1):48-52. [PubMed ID: 15685135]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2004.08.004.

  • 29.

    Mohamed DD, Abdelmoneim EM, Mahil A, Ahmed H, Najla M, Mehera M, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice towards needle stick injury among health care workers in a tertiary Sudanese hospital. S Am J Clin Res. 2016;3(1).

  • 30.

    Mbirimtengerenji N, Schaio J, Guo LY, Muula A. Association of the dominant hand and needle stick injuries for healthcare workers in Taiwan. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):56-60. [PubMed ID: 23638275]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3576832].

  • 31.

    Hassanipour S, Sepandi M, Tavakkol R, Jabbari M, Rabiei H, Malakoutikhah M, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of needlestick injuries among healthcare workers in Iran: a systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Environ Health Prev Med. 2021;26(1):43. [PubMed ID: 33794759]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8015057]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-021-00965-x.

  • 32.

    Senn L, Petignant C, Chabanel D, Zanetti G. [Control of an outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in several hospitals of western Switzerland]. Rev Med Suisse. 2013;9(383):890-3. French. [PubMed ID: 23697084].

  • 33.

    Mbaisi EM, Ng'ang'a Z, Wanzala P, Omolo J. Prevalence and factors associated with percutaneous injuries and splash exposures among health-care workers in a provincial hospital, Kenya, 2010. Pan Afr Med J. 2013;14:10. [PubMed ID: 23504245]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3597860]. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2013.14.10.1373.

  • 34.

    Serinken M, Karcioglu O, Kutlu SS, Sener S, Keysan MK. A survey of needlesticks and sharp instrument injuries in emergency health care in Turkey. J Emerg Nurs. 2009;35(3):205-10. [PubMed ID: 19446124]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2008.02.001.

  • 35.

    Zeighami R, Azimiyan J, Haghi M, Kaboodi B, Bijani B, Haghi M. A comparison between the risk of needle stick injuries among nurses in emergency wards and nurses in other wards of hospitals. Mod Care J. 2014;10(4):272-8.

  • 36.

    Wang C, Huang L, Li J, Dai J. Relationship between psychosocial working conditions, stress perception, and needle-stick injury among healthcare workers in Shanghai. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):874. [PubMed ID: 31272426]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6610837]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7181-7.

  • 37.

    Sharifian A, Aminian O, Afshari Saleh L. [Occupational stress and its relationship with need le stick injury among emergency department personnel]. Occupational Medicine Quarterly Journal. 2012;3(4):7-13. Persian.

  • 38.

    Voide C, Darling KE, Kenfak-Foguena A, Erard V, Cavassini M, Lazor-Blanchet C. Underreporting of needlestick and sharps injuries among healthcare workers in a Swiss University Hospital. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13523. [PubMed ID: 22328010]. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2012.13523.

  • 39.

    Joukar F, Mansour-Ghanaei F, Naghipour M, Asgharnezhad M. Needlestick Injuries among Healthcare Workers: Why They Do Not Report their Incidence? Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2018;23(5):382-7. [PubMed ID: 30186344]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6111658]. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_74_17.

  • 40.

    Costigliola V, Frid A, Letondeur C, Strauss K. Needlestick injuries in European nurses in diabetes. Diabetes Metab. 2012;38 Suppl 1:S9-14. [PubMed ID: 22305441]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1262-3636(12)70976-X.

  • 41.

    Ghanei Gheshlagh R, Nazari M, Baghi V, Dalvand S, Dalvandi A, Sayehmiri K. [Underreporting of needlestick injuries among healthcare providers in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis]. Hayat. 2017;23(3):201-13. Persian.

  • 42.

    Quinn MM, Markkanen PK, Galligan CJ, Kriebel D, Chalupka SM, Kim H, et al. Sharps injuries and other blood and body fluid exposures among home health care nurses and aides. Am J Public Health. 2009;99 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S710-7. [PubMed ID: 19890177]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC2774204]. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.150169.