The results revealed that this route did not lead to any needle stick injuries. The ESA worked as efficaciously as it would have if needles were used and this was proved by the maintenance of the hemoglobin levels. It was observed that 91% of the nursing staff was in favor of the needle free administration of ESA. This study therefore concluded that drugs with detached needles present further routes to prevent needle stick injuries in the future. (Chow et. al, 2009)
Seeing how needle stick injuries can lead to emotional, health related and financial dilemma, experts are working on ways to reduce their occurrence. The study by Chow et al. (2009) shows one way in which these incidences can be reduced. Molen et al. (2011) stated that education reduces the occurrence of needle stick injury. He conducted a study in which one group was educated in a workshop and given needle safety device. One group was only given the safety device and was not educated on how to use it. All the groups were observed after 6 and 12 months of the intervention. The results revealed that the people who received the intervention had a more positive attitude towards needle safety. It was also very impressive to see that this group also showed less needle sticks injuries as well. (Molen et al. 2011)
As mentioned before, the use of the syringes and the nurse's practice with that device is very important. Because the nurse will be using these gadgets in the future, it is very crucial for them to evaluate it for their safety and usage purposes. Ford (2011) carried out a study to evaluate the safety of hypodermic needle devices. Results from the study revealed that these devices were easy to use but would require quite a lot of practice first.
Outcome and implications
The first thing that the nurse should have done was report the incident. Reporting the incident has become quite a problem and it causes literature studies to lose track of the incidence of actual SIN injuries. (Whitby & McLaws, 2002) It was also seen that as the reporting decreased, the incidence of these injuries actually increased. (Doebbeling et.al, 2003) This therefore denotes that reporting the incident is very crucial.
After this incident took place, the nurse followed the standard protocol that is followed after an NSI occurs. Seeing how the major hazard in this scenario is of the communicable diseases like Hepatitis and AIDS, the nurse was tested for all of these diseases. After taking consent, both the nurse and the patient were tested for these diseases. The nurse as also given her immunization and was counseled about the incident in a lot of detail.
This sort of incident is quite serious and does require a policy review. As mentioned before, student nurses are very frequently exposed to these injuries. These injuries can be life changing for the nurse and thus the staff needs to work on reducing these incidents. The staff needs to be strictly guided and counseled about their chaperoning duties. It is true that the students need practical exposure but their lives are more important. The staff needs to be very strict and disciplined with the students. They need to overlook their actions and guide them very thoroughly about the steps that need to be taken.
It is possible to consider a change in policy in which nursing students are not required to administer injections unless they are near the end of their program. Another way this area could be made strict is that nursing students can be deprived of their privileges if they go on to practice unsupervised.
Overall, we see that main problem is to figure out the contributing factors for the needle stick injuries. After these factors are identified, the staff needs to work to counsel and reduce these injuries. The major thing that can be done is to prevent this hazard and reduce the number of Needle stick injuries in the future.
Adams, D. 2012 Needle stick and sharps injuries: implications for practice. Nursing Standard. 26 (37), pp. 49-57.
Aziz, A.M., Ashton, H., Pagett, A., Mathieson, K., Jones, S., and Mullin, B 2009 Sharps
management in hospital: an audit of equipment, practice and awareness. Br J. Nurs 18(2), pp. 92 -- 8
Blenkharn, J. 2009. Sharps management and the disposal of clincal waste. British Journal of Nursing, 18 (14).
Blenkharn, J. 2009. Blood and body fluid exposures in clinical waste handlers.. Waste Manag.
Chow, J., Wong, J., Jeffesys, A. And Suranyi, M. 2009. Needle-Stick Injury: A Novel Intervention To Reducethe Occupational Health And Safety Risk In The Haemodialysis Setting. Journal Of Renal Care, 35 (3), Pp. 120-126.
Costigliola, V., Frid, A., Letondeur, C., and Strauss, K. 2012 Needlestickinjuries in European nurses in diabetes. Diabetes and Metabolism.38 (1), pp. S9-S14.
Deisenhammer, S., Radon, K., Nowak, D., and Reichert, J. 2006 Needlestick injuries during medical training. J Hosp Infect 63, pp. 263 -- 7
Doebbeling, B.N., Vaughn, T.E., and McCoy, K.D. et al. 2003. Percutaneous injury, blood exposure, and adherence to standard precautions: are hospital-based health care providers still at risk? Clin. Infect. Dis, 37, pp. 1006 -- 1013.
Ford, J. And Phillips, P.2011An evaluation of sharp safety hypodermic needle devices. Nursing Standard.25 (35), pp. 39-44.
Glenngard, A. And Persson, U. 2009. Costs associated with sharps injuries in the Swedish health care setting and potential cost savings from needle-stick prevention devices with needle and syringe. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 41 (296-302)
Jagger, J., Hunt, E.H., Brand-Elnaggar, J., and Pearson, R.D. 1988 Rates of needle-stick injury caused by various devices in a university hospital. New England Journal of Medicine.319 (5), pp. 284-288.