evaluation of needle remover devices program for appropriate technology in health balcan, uk

15
Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Upload: alejandra-haxby

Post on 30-Mar-2015

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices

Program for Appropriate Technology in Health

Balcan, UK

Page 2: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Needle Removers• Concept• Advantages• Disadvantages• Contamination Study• Design Tradeoffs

SIGN—October 2002

Balcan, UK

Page 3: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Needle remover collects needles in a secure container

Syringe bodies are put in a safety box

Needles are dumped from the container into a protected pit

Concept

Safely remove used needles from syringes

SIGN—October 2002

Page 4: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Advantages• Decrease waste volume

• Decrease/contain sharps waste

• Lower cost of handling/transport

• Fewer safety boxes

• Help prevent reuse

SIGN—October 2002

Page 5: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Disadvantagesoffset by...Additional cost

Supply needs

Possible splatter contamination

– Reusable containers– Bundling?

– 90% less sharps waste– Fewer safety boxes– Lower transport cost– Long life of device

– Conduct study

SIGN—October 2002

Increased handling

– Fewer sharps downstream

Page 6: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Study Background

Literature shows risk of infection

– Pathogens spread by hands

– Splash to the eye

• Lauer JL, VanDrunen NA, Washburn JW, Balfour HH Jr. Transmission of hepatitis B virus in clinical laboratory areas. J Infect Dis 1979;140:513-6.• Follett EA, Sleigh JD. Hepatitis B as a hazard to laboratory staff: a re-appraisal. J Clin Pathol 1980;33:1017-20.• Levy BS, Harris JC, Smith JL, Washburn JW, Mature J, Davis A, Crosson JT, Polesky H, Hanson M. Hepatitis B in ward and clinical laboratory

employees of a general hospital. Am J Epidemiol 1977;106:330-5.• Sartori M, Terra GL, Aglietta M, Manzin A, Navino C, Verzetti G. Transmission of hepatitis C via blood splash into conjunctiva. Custom 1:

19930713 DCOM- 19930713 LR - 20001218 1993;25:270-1.• Ippolito G, Puro V, Petrosillo N, De Carli G, Micheloni G, Magliano E. Simultaneous infection with HIV and hepatitis C virus following

occupational conjunctival blood exposure. JAMA 1998;280:28.

Page 7: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Design• Qualitative

• Visual Marker

• Sensitivity < 1mm diameter

SIGN—October 2002

Page 8: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Method

• 0.25 ml dye solution, lumen filled

• Control drips prior to use

• Compliant use, manufacturer’s IFUs

• 20 uses per device

SIGN—October 2002

Page 9: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Materials• 5 devices from 4 manufacturers

• 2 cutters, 3 pullers

• WHO Safety Box

• Pliers

SIGN—October 2002

Page 10: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Results

• No splatter from any device EXCEPT...

• Pliers

SIGN—October 2002

Page 11: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

SIGN—October 2002

Page 12: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Limits• Does not measure aerosolization

• Does not measure non-

compliant use

• One syringe size (23 gauge 1

inch)SIGN—October 2002

Page 13: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Needle Removers• Concept• Advantages• Disadvantages• Contamination Study• Design Tradeoffs

SIGN—October 2002

Nomoresharps, Australia

Page 14: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Design Tradeoffs• Cost vs. durability

• Portability vs. static use

• Needle container reusable

vs. disposable

• Syringe destruction

SIGN—October 2002

Page 15: Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices Program for Appropriate Technology in Health Balcan, UK

Appropriate Device

• Inexpensive• Non-electric• Reliable and durable • Safe• Simple to use

SIGN—October 2002