1 / 15

Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices

Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices. Program for Appropriate Technology in Health. Balcan, UK. SIGN—October 2002. Needle Removers. Concept Advantages Disadvantages Contamination Study Design Tradeoffs. Balcan, UK. Needle remover collects needles in a secure container.

aiden
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation of Needle Remover Devices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. SIGN—October 2002 Needle Removers • Concept • Advantages • Disadvantages • Contamination Study • Design Tradeoffs Balcan, UK

  3. Needle remover collects needles in a secure container Needles are dumped from the container into a protected pit Syringe bodies are put in a safety box Concept • Safely remove used needles from syringes • SIGN—October 2002

  4. SIGN—October 2002 Advantages • Decrease waste volume • Decrease/contain sharps waste • Lower cost of handling/transport • Fewer safety boxes • Help prevent reuse

  5. Additional cost Supply needs Increased handling Possible splatter contamination • SIGN—October 2002 Disadvantages offset by... • 90% less sharps waste • Fewer safety boxes • Lower transport cost • Long life of device • Reusable containers • Bundling? • Fewer sharps downstream • Conduct study

  6. 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.

  7. SIGN—October 2002 Design • Qualitative • Visual Marker • Sensitivity < 1mm diameter

  8. SIGN—October 2002 Method • 0.25 ml dye solution, lumen filled • Control drips prior to use • Compliant use, manufacturer’s IFUs • 20 uses per device

  9. SIGN—October 2002 Materials • 5 devices from 4 manufacturers • 2 cutters, 3 pullers • WHO Safety Box • Pliers

  10. SIGN—October 2002 Results • No splatter from any device EXCEPT... • Pliers

  11. SIGN—October 2002

  12. SIGN—October 2002 Limits • Does not measure aerosolization • Does not measure non-compliant use • One syringe size (23 gauge 1 inch)

  13. SIGN—October 2002 Needle Removers • Concept • Advantages • Disadvantages • Contamination Study • Design Tradeoffs Nomoresharps, Australia

  14. SIGN—October 2002 Design Tradeoffs • Cost vs. durability • Portability vs. static use • Needle container reusable vs. disposable • Syringe destruction

  15. SIGN—October 2002 Appropriate Device • Inexpensive • Non-electric • Reliable and durable • Safe • Simple to use

More Related