These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A Model-Based Product Evaluation Protocol for Comparison of Safety-Engineered Protection Mechanisms of Winged Blood Collection Needles.
    Author: Haupt C, Spaeth J, Ahne T, Goebel U, Steinmann D.
    Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 2016 May; 37(5):505-11. PubMed ID: 26868306.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in product characteristics and user preferences of safety-engineered protection mechanisms of winged blood collection needles. DESIGN: Randomized model-based simulation study. SETTING: University medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 33 third-year medical students. METHODS: Venipuncture was performed using winged blood collection needles with 4 different safety mechanisms: (a) Venofix Safety, (b) BD Vacutainer Push Button, (c) Safety-Multifly, and (d) Surshield Surflo. Each needle type was used in 3 consecutive tries: there was an uninstructed first handling, then instructions were given according to the operating manual; subsequently, a first trial and second trial were conducted. Study end points included successful activation, activation time, single-handed activation, correct activation, possible risk of needlestick injury, possibility of deactivation, and preferred safety mechanism. RESULTS: The overall successful activation rate during the second trial was equal for all 4 devices (94%-100%). Median activation time was (a) 7 s, (b) 2 s, (c) 9 s, and (d) 7 s. Single-handed activation during the second trial was (a) 18%, (b) 82%, (c) 15%, and (d) 45%. Correct activation during the second trial was (a) 3%, (b) 64%, (c) 15%, and (d) 39%. Possible risk of needlestick injury during the second trial was highest with (d). Possibility of deactivation was (a) 0%, (b) 12%, (c) 9%, and (d) 18%. Individual preferences for each system were (a) 11, (b) 17, (c) 5, and (d) 0. The main reason for preference was the comprehensive safety mechanism. CONCLUSION: Significant differences exist between safety mechanisms of winged blood collection needles.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]