How to Prevent Sharps Injuries in Healthcare Settings: Safety Needles

Sharps injuries are among the most common occupational hazards in healthcare. An accidental puncture with a contaminated needle can expose professionals to bloodborne pathogens, with consequences ranging from immediate psychological distress to long-term chronic infections. Reducing these incidents depends on staff training, institutional protocols, and, critically, the selection of appropriate devices. This article reviews the associated risks, the professional groups most exposed, and the role of safety needles in preventing accidents in clinical settings.

Sharps injuries in healthcare: biological risks and response protocols

Needles and other sharps are used daily in hospitals, primary care centers, and home care environments. Their handling carries an inherent risk of accidental exposure to blood and bodily fluids. It is estimated that around 3 million healthcare workers worldwide experience occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens each year, with needlestick injuries being the most common route and hepatitis B the most frequent infection.

Exposure to contaminated material is not limited to biological risk. Recent studies document a wide range of psychological consequences, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, post-traumatic stress disorder, and reduced work productivity. Between 14.9% and 69.4% of healthcare professionals report having experienced at least one needlestick injury during their careers, with variability largely due to methodological differences and underreporting.

Exposure to bloodborne pathogens: clinical implications and management

The risk of transmission following a needlestick injury depends on the pathogen involved. Among bloodborne viruses, the hepatitis B virus (HBV) carries the highest risk of transmission in non-immunized individuals. It is estimated that, for every 1,000 percutaneous exposures to infected blood, approximately 300 healthcare workers may become infected.

For hepatitis C virus (HCV), the risk is lower, with an estimated 30 infections per 1,000 needlestick injuries involving contaminated material. In the case of HIV, the probability of transmission is around 3 infections per 1,000 exposures.

Contact with contaminated sharps accounts for between 37% and 39% of all HBV and HCV infections acquired by healthcare workers in the course of their professional activity. Following accidental exposure, standard protocol includes thorough washing of the wound with soap and water, prompt reporting to the infection control service, and risk assessment based on the source patient’s serological status. In cases of potential HIV exposure, post-exposure prophylaxis should be initiated immediately and no later than 72 hours after exposure. Studies conducted in tertiary hospitals indicate that when protocols are properly followed, no seroconversion is observed during six months of follow-up.

Healthcare workers and procedures with the highest risk of needlestick injuries

Risk is not evenly distributed across professional groups. Nursing staff are generally the most affected, given their direct and continuous handling of needles, catheters, and infusion systems. Some studies also identify a high risk among physicians, particularly residents and interns in their first months of clinical practice. In a ten-year study conducted at a university hospital, this group accounted for up to 26% of all recorded incidents.

Procedures and contexts most frequently associated with needlestick injuries include:

• Venous blood draws and capillary sampling.
• Administration of intramuscular, subcutaneous, and intravenous injections, including the use of Luer syringes and precision devices.
• Insertion and removal of peripheral venous catheters.
• Recapping of needles, a discouraged practice that still accounts for a significant proportion of accidents.
• Handling and transport of used sharps.
• Surgical and suturing procedures.

Emergency departments and intensive care units show a higher incidence due to workload intensity and clinical complexity. Cleaning staff and waste management personnel also face significant exposure, typically as a result of improper disposal of sharps. Preventing needlestick injuries in these contexts requires tailored strategies based on specific activities and professional roles.

Reducing injuries and clinical risk through the use of safety needles

Devices with integrated safety mechanisms have demonstrated the greatest impact in reducing needlestick injuries. Countries with legislation mandating their use have reported reductions of up to 22% within three to six years of implementation. Safety syringes and needles with active protection mechanisms reduce injury risk by between 43% and 100% compared to conventional devices. Available systems include:

• Automatic sliding shields
• Automatic retraction mechanisms
• Locking systems
• Specialized needle bevel designs

However, the mere availability of safety devices does not guarantee effectiveness. Injuries involving these devices are almost entirely due to failure to activate the safety mechanism correctly. Practical training for healthcare workers is therefore as critical as the device itself.

Regulatory framework, prevention measures, and selection criteria for safety needles

In Europe, safety needle regulations are based on Directive 2010/32/EU. This framework requires healthcare institutions to assess injury risks, provide devices with integrated safety mechanisms, and train staff in their proper use. When selecting materials, several factors should be considered:

• The device must be appropriate for the procedure: needle types vary in length, diameter, and design depending on the route of administration. Understanding the features of each device is essential to minimizing risk.
• Compatibility with existing administration systems: the devices must be compatible with the facility’s equipment, whether they are Luer syringes, infusion sets, or other equipment.
• Safety mechanism: the device must be CE-marked, comply with applicable ISO standards, and be equipped with an ergonomic mechanism that can be operated with one hand.
• Practical training: the implementation of any device must be accompanied by specific staff training.

At Bexen Medical, a full range of safety needles and syringes is available, designed to minimize the risk of incorrect connections and accidental injuries. The portfolio includes hypodermic needles, blood collection needles, blunt fill needles, insulin syringes, and insulin pen needles, all featuring integrated safety mechanisms, sterile, and single-use. All products are CE-marked and comply with Regulation (EU) 2017/745.

For further information, contact our team to identify the most suitable devices for your facility’s safety requirements.

References

Council of the European Union. Council Directive 2010/32/EU of 10 May 2010 implementing the Framework Agreement on prevention from sharp injuries in the hospital and healthcare sector concluded by HOSPEEM and EPSU [Internet]. Official Journal of the European Union; 2010 [cited 2026 Apr 7]. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:134:0066:0072:en:PDF 

Cooke CE, Stephens JM. Clinical, economic, and humanistic burden of needlestick injuries in healthcare workers. Med Devices (Auckl). 2017 Sep 29;10:225-235. doi: 10.2147/MDER.S140846. 

Ou YS, Wu HC, Guo YL, Shiao JSC. Comparing risk changes of needlestick injuries between countries adopted and not adopted the needlestick safety and prevention act: A meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022 Sep;43(9):1221-1227. doi: 10.1017/ice.2021.372. 

R P, D A, Nelson SB, Venkateshvaran S, Thulasiram M. Profile of Splash, Sharp and Needle-Stick Injuries Among Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Southern India. Cureus. 2023 Jul 29;15(7):e42671. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42671.

Wong SC, Yuen LL, Lam GK, Kwok MO, Siu CY, Li BH, Chen JH, So SY, Chiu KH, Cheng VC. Confronting needlestick and sharp injuries in healthcare: a decade of struggle and progress in a university teaching hospital. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Feb 1;25(1):195. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12345-0.