3.9 Article

Determination of Risk of Infection with Blood-borne Pathogens Following a Needlestick Injury in Hospital Workers

Journal

ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE
Volume 52, Issue 7, Pages 615-622

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/men044

Keywords

blood-borne viruses; healthcare workers; occupational infections

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Our paper measures the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in patients at the University Hospital of Frankfurt/Main, and correlates the prevalence with risk factors for exposure to and infection of healthcare workers (HCWs). Individual risk assessments were calculated for exposed HCWs. Methods: Survey of patients admitted to a German University Hospital. Markers for HBV, HCV and HIV were studied and evaluated statistically. Data on needlestick injuries (NSIs) among HCWs were correlated with the prevalence of infectious patients. Results: The HBV, HCV and HIV prevalence among patients at the University Hospital were 5.3% (n = 709/13 358), 5.8% (n = 1167/20 163) and 4.1% (n = 552/13 381), respectively. Our results indicate that the prevalence of blood-borne infections in patients was about nine times higher for HBV, similar to 15 times higher for HCV and similar to 82 times higher for HIV than in the overall German population. The highest risk of acquiring a blood-borne infection via NSI was found in the department of internal medicine due to increased prevalence of blood-borne pathogens in patients under treatment. Conclusions: While accidental NSIs were most frequent in surgery, the nominal risk of blood-borne virus infection was greatest in the field of internal medicine. The study underlines the importance of HBV vaccinations and access to HIV-post-exposure prophylaxis for HCWs as well as the use of anti-needlestick devices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available