Nurses failure to appreciate the risks of infection due to needle stick accidents: a hospital based survey
Journal of Hospital Infection, ISSN: 0195-6701, Vol: 42, Issue: 1, Page: 53-59
1999
- 39Citations
- 33Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations39
- Citation Indexes39
- 39
- CrossRef29
- Captures33
- Readers33
- 33
Article Description
One of the most important occupational risks to healthcare workers is exposure is to blood-borne viruses. This study examined nurses’ perceptions of risk of contracting infection following single or multiple exposure to blood or body fluids. Two hundred and ninety nurses were surveyed using a questionnaire. One hundred and thirty-three responded; 85 worked in higher risk areas (ITU, Haematology, Haemodialysis and Neonatal Surgical Units) (Group A) and 48 worked in lower risk areas (medical wards, an orthopaedic and an ENT ward) (Group B). Forty-nine percent of subjects from group A and 60% of subjects from Group B believed that a needle stick injury with a needle contaminated with infected blood was an unlikely source of infection. Fifteen percent from group A and 20% from group B thought that infection with a blood-borne virus following a needle stick injury contaminated with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infected blood was very unlikely. Twelve percent from group A and 10% from Group B did not know whether resheathing needles between use can provide protection against HIV. Sixty-seven percent from group A and 71% from group B disagreed with the statement that nurses are at higher risk of exposure to HIV/HBV than the other healthcare workers. Thirteen percent from group A and 5% from group B agreed with the statement, whereas 8% from group A and 5% from group B thought that nurses are at less risk. Only 22% from group A and 23% from group B would take more precautions if they knew that the patient had HIV/HBV infection, whilst 11% and 8% respectively admitted that they would take special precautions only when the patient has clinical symptoms of HIV/HBV infection. The findings suggest that these nurses would benefit from further education regarding infection from blood-borne viruses.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670198905242; http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/jhin.1998.0524; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0033040737&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10363211; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0195670198905242; https://dx.doi.org/10.1053/jhin.1998.0524
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know