Korean J healthc assoc Infect Control Prev.  2018 Jun;23(1):14-23. 10.14192/kjhaicp.2018.23.1.14.

Evaluation of the Safety and Performance of Blood Culture Practices Using BD Safety-Lokâ„¢ Blood Collection Sets in the Emergency Room

• Chang J
• Lee T
• Sung H
• Kim MN
• Kim YJ
• Lee YS

• KMID: 2414499
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14192/kjhaicp.2018.23.1.14

Abstract

BACKGROUND
A safety device is recommended to improve the safety and performance of blood culture practice. BD vacutainer® Safety-Lokâ„¢ blood collection sets with pre-attached holder (Safety-Lok) were evaluated in the emergency room (ER) of a tertiary care hospital.
METHODS
Interns and nurses in the ER were surveyed regarding blood culture practices with a questionnaire before and after 2 or 3 weeks of experience with using Safety-Lok from April to June 2017. All participants underwent a 1-h exercise workshop combined with video education before the initial survey. The blood volume, positivity, and contamination rates of Safety-Lok-drawn (SD) blood cultures were compared to those of the overall blood cultures.
RESULTS
A total of 18 interns and 30 nurses were enrolled. The result of the initial survey showed that interns had higher rates of needle stick incidence (27.8%), higher rates of carriage of blood-filled syringe with needle (88.9%), and lower rates of Vacutainer® one-use holder (BD, USA) use (38.9%) than nurses had (13.3%, 53.3%, and 60.0%, respectively). Compared with nurses (40.0%), interns preferred to use safety devices (88.9%). The number of overall blood cultures and SD blood cultures were 9,053 and 555, respectively, during the study period. The overall blood volume collected in aerobic bottles was 2.6±2.1 mL, and the SD blood volumes collected in aerobic and anaerobic bottles were 5.0±3.0 mL and 6.0±3.0 mL, respectively. Positive and contamination rates were 6.5% and 0.72% with SD blood cultures and 6.2% and 0.3% with overall blood cultures, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The introduction of the safety device would encourage healthcare workers to collect adequate blood volume and would lead to safer practices in the ER.

Keyword

Blood culture; Needlestick; Safety device; Volume

MeSH Terms

Blood Volume
Delivery of Health Care
Education
Emergencies*
Emergency Service, Hospital*
Incidence
Needles
Needlestick Injuries
Protective Devices
Syringes
Tertiary Healthcare

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Moments of the needle stick injury among interns, novice nurses, and experienced nurses.

• 

  Fig. 2 Device which is necessary to improve the safety of blood culture in interns, novice nurses and experienced nurse.

Reference

1. Weinstein MP, Towns ML, Quartey SM, Mirrett S, Reimer LG, Parmigiani G, et al. The clinical significance of positive blood cultures in the 1990s: a prospective comprehensive evaluation of the microbiology, epidemiology, and outcome of bacteremia and fungemia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 1997; 24:584–602.

2. McCormick RD, Maki DG. Epidemiology of needle-stick injuries in hospital personnel. Am J Med. 1981; 70:928–932.

3. Lakbala P, Azar FE, Kamali H. Needlestick and sharps injuries among housekeeping workers in hospitals of Shiraz, Iran. BMC Res Notes. 2012; 5:276.

4. Prüss-Ustün A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005; 48:482–490.

5. Shiao J, Guo L, McLaws ML. Estimation of the risk of bloodborne pathogens to health care workers after a needlestick injury in Taiwan. Am J Infect Control. 2002; 30:15–20.

6. Korea Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Guidelines for prevention and control of Healthcare associated infections. Cheongju: Korea Centers for Disease Control & Prevention;2017.

7. Park S, Jeong IS, Jun SS. Effect of sharps injury prevention program on the incidence and reporting of sharp injury among nurses. Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control. 2013; 18:15–25.

8. Lee KH, Choi SI, Park JS. The effect of the prevention program of needle-stick injury on needle-stick knowledge, compliance and incidence. Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control. 2011; 16:45–53.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during phlebotomy procedures--Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993–1995. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46:21–25.

10. Jagger J. Reducing occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens: where do we stand a decade later? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996; 17:573–575.

11. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Principles and procedures for blood cultures; approved guideline. CLSI document M47-A. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute;2007.

12. Fukuda H, Yamanaka N. Reducing needlestick injuries through safety-engineered devices: results of a Japanese multi-centre study. J Hosp Infect. 2016; 92:147–153.

13. Ballout RA, Diab B, Harb AC, Tarabay R, Khamassi S, Akl EA. Use of safety-engineered devices by healthcare workers for intravenous and/or phlebotomy procedures in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16:458.

14. Mitchell AH, Parker GB, Kanamori H, Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Comparing non-safety with safety device sharps injury incidence data from two different occupational surveillance systems. J Hosp Infect. 2017; 96:195–198.

15. Thomas WJ, Murray JR. The incidence and reporting rates of needle-stick injury amongst UK surgeons. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009; 91:12–17.

16. Azadi A, Anoosheh M, Delpisheh A. Frequency and barriers of underreported needlestick injuries amongst Iranian nurses, a questionnaire survey. J Clin Nurs. 2011; 20:488–493.

17. Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Pratt RJ, Golsorkhi M, Tingle A, Bak A, et al. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect. 2014; 86:Suppl 1. S1–S70.

18. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Infection: prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections in primary and community care: partial update of NICE Clinical Guideline 2. London: Royal College of Physicians (UK);2012.

19. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L. Health Care Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. 2007 Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in health care settings. Am J Infect Control. 2007; 35:10 Suppl 2. S65–164.

20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Workbook for designing, implementing, and evaluating a sharps injury prevention program. Updated on 2015. https://www.cdc.gov/sharpssafety/pdf/sharpsworkbook_2008.pdf.

21. Valls V, Lozano MS, Yánez R, Martínez MJ, Pascual F, Lloret J, et al. Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007; 28:1352–1360.

22. Au E, Gossage JA, Bailey SR. The reporting of needlestick injuries sustained in theatre by surgeons: are we under-reporting? J Hosp Infect. 2008; 70:66–70.

23. Hamory BH. Underreporting of needlestick injuries in a university hospital. Am J Infect Control. 1983; 11:174–177.

24. 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.

25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bloodborne infectious diseases: HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C. Updated on April 7, 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/bbp/guidelines.html.

26. BD Diagnostics. BD BACTEC™ blood culture media. http://www.bd.com/en-us/offerings/capabilities/microbiology-solutions/blood-culture/bd-bactec-blood-culture-media.

27. Chang J, Park JS, Park S, Choi B, Yoon NS, Sung H, et al. Impact of monitoring blood volume in the BD BACTEC™ FX blood culture system: virtual volume versus actual volume. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015; 81:89–93.