Study confirms passive safety most effective
A landmark study conducted by GERES compares needlestick safety devices, concluding automatic safety (passive) devices perform 2x-3x better than alternative choices.
Needlestick Injury Rates According to Different Types of Safety-Engineered Devices: Results of a French Multicenter Study
Purpose of Study
To evaluate the incidence of needlestick injuries (NSIs) among different models of SEDs in healthcare settings.
A landmark study for multiple reasons:
- Assessed the NSIs with various types of SEDs rather than comparing traditional, non-safety device to SEDs as most other studies have done
- Included 22 million SEDs, the largest study of SEDs to date
Introduction of safety-engineered devices (SEDs) has not eliminated the problem of needlestick injuries (NSIs).
Results confirmed that passive SEDs, those with fully automatic features, produce lower NSI rates than other designs and create significantly better.
For more information about the B. Braun Introcan Safety® IV Catheter, email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Needlestick Injury Rates According to Different Types of Safety-Engineered Devices: Results of a French Multicenter Study conducted by GERES (Groupe d'Etude sur le Risque d'Exposition des Soignants aux Agents Infectieux), and published by Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, April 2010; 31:402-407