Unsafe misconceptions about the performance of safety-engineered needles

Since passage of the U.S. Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act (HR5178) in 2000, researchers have focused on evaluating and maximizing the safety efficacy of safety-engineered sharps. Our EPINet research database, which spans 1993-2006, provides critical descriptive and quantitative data regarding over 30,000 sharps injuries among hospital employees. We have documented a 34% reduction in injuries from hollow bore needles after passage of the law. Despite this impact and the apparent benefits of safety-engineered devices, there are several misconceptions reported by other researchers regarding the effectiveness of safety-engineered devices. Misconceptions include: 1) the rise of needlestick injuries from safety devices proves that safety devices are not safe 2) since OSHA requires selection of the most effective safety device, the “best” safety device(s) must be identified and endorsed, 3) clinical trials comparing the performance of two or more safety-engineered devices must be carried-out to determine which device is “best”. These misconceptions threaten to undermine policies that support the sustained adoption of safety-engineered devices. We provide evidence from our national EPINet database to refute these misconceptions and tell a more nuanced, more accurate picture of the issues surrounding safety-engineered devices.