Open AccessChinese EPINet and Recall Rates for Percutaneous Injuries: An Epidemic Proportion of Underreporting in the Taiwan Healthcare System
Author(s) -
Shiao Judith ShuChu,
McLaws MaryLouise,
Lin MingHsiu,
Jagger Janine,
Chen ChiouJong
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of occupational health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 59
ISSN - 1348-9585
DOI - 10.1539/joh.l8111
Subject(s) - medicine , health care , recall , demography , environmental health , medical emergency , emergency medicine , psychology , political science , sociology , law , cognitive psychology
Chinese EPINet and Recall Rates for Percutaneous Injuries: An Epidemic Proportion of Underreporting in the Taiwan Healthcare System: Judith Shu‐Chu S hiao , et al . Department of Nursing, National Taiwan University, College of Medicine and NTU Hospital, TaiwanObjectives As an occupational injury, percutaneous injury (PI) can result in chronic morbidity and death for healthcare workers (HCWs). A pilot surveillance system for PIs using the Chinese version of Exposure Prevention Information Network (EPINet) was introduced in Taiwan in 2003. We compared data from EPINet and recall of PIs using a cross‐sectional survey for rates to establish the reliability of the new system. Methods HCWs from hospitals that had implemented EPINet for ≥12 months completed a survey for recall of contaminated PIs sustained between October 2004 and September 2005, type of item involved, and reasons for reporting or not reporting the PI. Comparative data from EPINet for the same period were analyzed. Results The EPINet rate, 36.1/1,000 HCW (95%CI 31.8–41.1) was almost 5 times lower ( p <0.0001) than the PI recall rate for 2,464 HCWs of 170/1,000 HCWs (95%CI 155.4–185.5). Approximately 2.5 PIs were recalled for every 1,000 bed‐days of care. The recall rate by physicians was 268.3/1,000, 188.5/1,000 for nurses, 88.9/1,000 for medical technologists and 81.3/1,000 for support staff. Hollow‐bore needle items most commonly recorded on EPINet includ, disposable needles and syringes were underreported by 81%, vacuum tube holder/needles by 67%, and arterial blood gas needles by 75%. Nearly 63% of the reasons for underreporting were related to the complexity of the reporting process, while 37% were associated with incorrect knowledge about the risks associated with PIs. Conclusions EPINet data underestimates a commonplace occupational injury with nearly four in five PIs not reported. Addressing the real barriers to reporting must begin with hospital administrators impressing on HCWs that reporting is essential for designing appropriate safety interventions.