We Write Custom Academic Papers

100% Original, Plagiarism Free, Customized to your instructions!

Research Study Needle-Safety

Research Study Needle-Safety

Select a peer-reviewed journal that has a research study [not provided in the course readings] related to quality monitoring (needle stick, falls, etc…) in health care delivery. In the discussion post provide:

  • a brief overview of the article
  • the process indicator or outcome indicator that is used to measure quality
  • whether the indicator effectively measures the problem – why or why not
  • report economic, legal, and regulatory processes that affect the quality initiative
  • a way to monitor and measure one aspect of your current practice (turning patients, time spent collaborating with other health care workers, medication delivery, etc…)

Accidental needlestick injuries (NSIs) are the predominant sharps-related problem in industrialised countries (Prüss‐Üstün et al, 2005). NHS Employers estimates that there are approximately 40 000 NSIs a year and recognises

that the true figure may be twice this, as many go unreported (NHS Employers, 2015). Measures to prevent sharps injuries can best be implemented using initiatives identified in the European Directive (European Council, 2010). The directive announced the modification of work practices that pose a risk of sharps injury in order to make them safer and introduced a complete end to the recapping of needles. It promoted a range of initiatives to prevent NSIs, such as training, use of needle-safety devices (NSDs), using sharps containers and improved treatment and care after an NSI has occurred. The author will focus on training and safety devices as these have been recognised as making the most impact in reducing NSIs (Beswick et al, 2012; Cheetham et al, 2016).

Do training and needle-safety devices prevent needlestick injuries? A systematised review of the literature Ann-Marie Aziz

ABSTRACT This systematised review was undertaken to appraise research on the effects of training and the use of needle-safety devices (NSDs) on the prevention of needlestick injuries (NSIs) among health workers, focusing on a European perspective. A literature search from 2007 to 2017 was performed, which identified six studies that investigated the introduction of training and NSDs and their affect on NSIs. The six chosen studies identified that training, as well as the adoption of NSDs, has an impact on preventing NSIs. However, further information is required on the content and mode of delivery of training and on which types of NSDs are most effective at preventing injuries. This will help healthcare workers to understand and implement the most effective strategies to prevent injuries. This article provides a critique of the research approaches used in the six studies.

Key words: Needlestick injuries ■ Needle safety devices ■ Needlestick injury prevention

Ann-Marie Aziz, Clinical Lead: Infection Control and Prevention, Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester,

Accepted for publication: July 2018

Method This systematised review focused on research from a European perspective, gathering information on studies that have been undertaken in European countries, highlighting measures that have helped to reduce NSIs prior to and after the introduction of European legislation (European Council, 2010). A search of the literature from 2007 to 2017 was performed, stipulating those studies that were available in English.

To achieve evidence-based healthcare, it is recommended that clinicians formulate clinical questions in terms of the problem/ population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) (Huang et al, 2006). The PICO framework is also a strategy for framing a research question (Beitz, 2006).

This study’s research question (does training and the use of NSDs prevent NSIs?) was broken down into the four PICO components to facilitate the identification of relevant information (Box 1). A clinical question needs to be directly relevant to the patient or problem at hand and phrased in such a way as to facilitate the search for an answer. PICO makes this process easier as it helps to formulate the search strategy by identifying the key concepts that need to be investigated.

The agreed search terms were sufficiently selective to exclude papers outside of the topic areas (Figure 1). Database searches were undertaken in AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, HBE (Health Business Elite), HMIC, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. The use of comprehensive search engines is consistent with recommendations given in a discussion paper about systematised reviews for occupational health research (Nicholson, 2007). The full process of the literature search is shown in Figure 1. To identify which articles to include in the review and to confirm that these are the only relevant articles that could be obtained after the literature search, inclusion and exclusion criteria were created.

Inclusion criteria were: ■ Search terms included in the title or abstract ■ Studies from 2007 to 2017 ■ English language studies ■ European studies ■ Studies involving healthcare workers, hospitals ■ Studies that showed education, training and NSDs prevented


944 British Journal of Nursing, 2018, Vol 27, No 16

© 2

01 8


H ea

lt h ca

re L




■ Studies that showed a numerical reduction in NSIs ■ Studies that showed a statistical significant reduction in NSIs.

Exclusion criteria were: ■ Studies that showed only a reduction in NSIs without

including training of staff ■ Studies that did not show a reduction in NSIs (some studies

did not provide information on NSI reduction, but simply discussed the introduction of NSDs and/or training)

■ Studies that evaluated NSDs only (and did not include training)

■ Studies that evaluated training only (and did not include NSDs)

■ Non-European studies ■ Studies where the full text could not be obtained (two

studies were in Spanish and could not be translated in the time limit of the study)

■ Studies on blunt needles, double gloving, splashes and body fluid exposure risk

■ Studies involving reporting and evaluating NSIs ■ Studies evaluating costs of NSIs ■ Studies looking at risk factors for NSIs.

Nineteen articles were assessed against the inclusion criteria. Six were chosen for the study as they met the aim of this systematised review, to assess if training given to healthcare workers as well as the adoption of NSDs, has an impact on preventing NSIs. The six studies comprised five cohort studies and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) (van der Molen et al, 2011) (Table 1). Of the 19 studies, the following were excluded from the study: Falagas et al (2007), Lamontagne et al (2007), Little et al (2007), Prunet et al (2008), Wicker et al (2008a), Wicker et al (2008b), Brusaferro et al (2009), Costigliola et al (2012), Dante et al (2014), Frickman et al (2016), Ganczak et al (2016), Dulon et al (2017), and Bossi et al (2016).

Quality and bias assessment Empirical studies show that certain aspects of trials conducted are associated with bias (Higgins et al, 2011). It was important to assess the studies chosen for this review for bias. Those studies with a low or high risk of bias may result in inappropriate recommendations for practice or policy (Norris et al, 2011). To prevent this, a critical appraisal is recommended to identify which findings are most reliable (Higgins et al, 2011). To ensure this review acknowledged the risk of bias, the author used two quality screening tools. The Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool was used to assess the non-randomised studies for quality and bias, scrutinising six domains: selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data-collection methods and withdrawals/dropouts (Deeks et al, 2003). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias was utilised for the RCT (Higgins et al, 2011).

The EPHPP tool is used to assess study quality based on component ratings. According to this tool, a study assessed as ‘strong’ achieves four strong ratings and no weak ratings. A study assessed as ‘moderate’ has fewer than four strong ratings and one weak rating; and a weak study achieves two or more weak ratings. The EPHPP tool was chosen because

it had been recommended as suitable for non-randomised intervention studies (Deeks et al, 2003). The tool allows for the evaluation of study designs and provides clear guidance for assessment so that it could be applied and interpreted in a logical format. The tool’s validity and reliability has been tested in various studies (Thomas et al, 2004).

Box 1. Population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework

P Population (healthcare workers, hospital, healthcare sector)

I Intervention (introduction of needle-safety devices and training, education, teaching, workshops)

C Comparison (no training and traditional sharps equipment)

O Outcome (rates of needlestick injuries)

In c lu

si o n c

ri te

ri a

S c re

e n in

g Id

e n ti

fi c a ti

o n

In c lu

d e d

Search terms examples:

■ Preventing needlestick injuries ■ Training and education reduces needlestick injuries

■ Needle-safety devices prevent needlestick injuries

Records limit to:

■ Inclusion criteria words in title or abstract

■ Limit dates to 2007 to 2017

■ English language articles only included

HDAS records screened for eligibility (n=27)

Other sources of information: (n=23)

European studies assessed for inclusion criteria: (n=19)

European studies included in systematised review (n=6)

Records identified through Healthcare Database Advanced

Search (HDAS) searching (n=5757)

Records identified through:

■ BMJ Journal Collections (n=1)

■ Ganczak et al (2016) ■ Citation searching (n=3) ■ Existing systematic/ literature reviews on subject (n=13)

■ Prüss-Üstün et al (2005) ■ Health and Safety Executive (2016)

■ Beswick et al (2012) ■ Royal College of Nursing (2009; 2013)

■ NHS Employers (2015) ■ Loveday et al (2014)

Figure 1. Flowchart showing database search strategy and combination of results for identification of studies for inclusion in review

British Journal of Nursing, 2018, Vol 27, No 16 945


2 01

8 M


ea lt h ca

re L




Data synthesis from the chosen studies The review identified that the chosen studies identified moderate quality evidence that training and NSDs do prevent NSI.

Nationality, language, publication information The chosen articles were reports of research in Spain, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Germany. There were very few published articles undertaken on the subject in the UK that combined both training and the use of NSDs as interventions to reduce the number of NSIs. This review included only evidence from published articles, which could be misleading if conclusions are ultimately based on these criteria. The literature shows that an article has a better chance of being published if it is published soon after the study has taken place, shows positive results and is financially supported by sponsors (Dubben and Beck-Bornholdt, 2005). This is referred to as publication bias and one way to counteract this is to access data from unpublished work. Song et al (2013) stated that unpublished work should be included in all systematised reviews and state this bias can be reduced by searching trial registers for completed and ongoing studies; searching informal publication sources including meeting abstracts (included within Cochrane trial registers) and PhD theses; searching regulatory bodies (such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database); contacting the authors of included studies; and contacting pharmaceutical or medical device companies for further studies.

There were several articles published on the subject by Spanish authors (Valls et al, 2007; Tejerina et al, 2008; Catalán et al, 2010; Funes-Artiaga et al, 2012). However, as the research was limited to English language articles, only one study was included (Valls et al, 2007) because this showed that training and NSDs led to a reduction in NSIs. The author is aware that exclusive reliance on English language studies may mean that not all of the evidence is represented in this review and may have introduced a language bias and lead to erroneous conclusions. This was unavoidable as the added time and cost of translation of articles was deemed not feasible within the restrictive timeframe.

Study designs There were various study designs included in the review; five could be broadly described as cohort studies, and the sixth was an RCT. No reason was given by the authors of the five cohort studies for choosing their study design or why they did not adopt a more rigorous approach such as an RCT. This may have been due to the disadvantages associated with RCTs in terms of the large numbers of participants required, cost, time and the need to obtain ethical approval, which can be a lengthy procedure. However, RCTs, often described as the ‘gold standard’ of scientific research, allow the investigation of the effect of an intervention while eliminating common research bias. The quality of chosen studies may have improved if they had undertaken an RCT. This may have reduced bias associated with confounders (for example, authors did not indicate how training before and after NSDs were introduced differed or was similar).

Participants in the studies were not blind to the intervention under investigation, which may have introduced bias. Descriptions of data-collection methods and self-reporting of NSIs were ambiguous. For these reasons the studies were deemed weak or moderate in the quality assessment. Only one study included withdrawal figures and dropout rates (Sossai et al, 2016). It is necessary for research to indicate the dropout rate, as this is a serious potential for bias. This may constitute a fatal flaw in a study, as dropouts result in incomplete data that can lead to inaccurate and spurious findings and erroneous results if dropout rates are high.

This review was unable to find a sound scientific methodology in any of the six chosen studies. An ideal environment for undertaking research is one that is controlled, allowing a hypothesis to be tested under set conditions. However, this is frequently impossible in certain areas, particularly busy hospital wards. The practice of experimental control and reproducibility can have the effect of diminishing the potentially harmful effects of personal bias (when researchers tend to observe what they expect to observe). Using the RCT format should reduce the likelihood of such biases occurring and enable clinicians to have confidence to base practice on the findings.

Table 1. The six studies included in the review

Authors Title Study setting Training given? Needle-safety device used?

Reduction in needle-stick injuries?

Valls et al (2007)

Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers

Spain Yes Yes Yes

Sossai et al (2010)

Using an intravenous catheter system to prevent needlestick injury Italy Yes Yes Yes

Tosini et al (2010)

Needlestick injury rates according to different types of safety- engineered devices: results of a French multi-centre study

France Yes Yes Yes

van der Molen et al (2011)

Better effect of the use of a needle safety device in combination with an interactive workshop to prevent needlestick injuries

Netherlands Yes Yes Yes

Hoffmann et al (2013)

Reduction of needlestick injuries in healthcare personnel at a university hospital using safety devices

Germany Yes Yes Yes

Sosai et al (2016)

Efficacy of safety catheter devices in the prevention of occupational needle stick injuries: applied research in the Liguria Region (Italy)

Italy Yes Yes Yes

946 British Journal of Nursing, 2018, Vol 27, No 16

© 2

01 8


H ea

lt h ca

re L




In one study in which new NSD devices were introduced, healthcare workers still had access to the conventional devices during the intervention period (van der Molen et al, 2011). NSIs caused by the conventional devices may have been mis- categorised as occurring when using the new NSDs, reducing the effect of the intervention and the quality of the research.

Participants All the studies chose participants who were employed in a hospital and had clinical experience using sharps equipment. There was no selection bias introduced by the selection of the individuals in the studies, as the healthcare workers were representative of the population under review.

Of the six studies analysed, the number of participants was included in only four:

■ Valls et al, 2007 (n=75) ■ Sossai et al, 2010 (n=4636) ■ van der Molen et al, 2001 (n=491) ■ Hoffmann et al, 2013 (n=6683).

Two studies did not disclose the number of participants but gave the number of NSDs used and the numbers of NSIs in the time period of the study (Tosini et al, 2010; Sossai et al, 2016). This total of 11 885 participants would not be considered representative of the vast numbers of health workers who use NSDs and so no real significance or positive correlation could be inferred. When undertaking scientific research, the study population is an important feature and an essential item to be included to reduce the probability of error, respect ethical standards, and define the logistics of the study (Martínez-Mesa et al, 2014). It allows conclusions to be drawn about the target population, as long as it is representative of the latter.

Needlestick injury reporting Under-reporting of NSIs was acknowledged in all the studies. This was recognised as a possible confounder and an issue that needed to improve in future studies if the extent of NSI occurrence is to be identified. All studies undertook purposive sampling, which is where the researchers have purposely selected the members of population to study. This is subjective sampling, usually used to save time and money. It can, however, have low levels of reliability and high levels of bias, making it difficult to generalise to the wider population. Undertaking research outside the hospital setting (which none of the studies included) may have had a different outcome. Healthcare settings such as nursing homes, GP clinics, private hospitals, ambulance trusts and community services all use sharps equipment but were not included in any of the research studies. Researchers may have wanted a more homogenous sample for ease of research, but diversifying the methodology and including other groups outside the hospital setting may have provided richer data and lead to stronger conclusions.

The study of NSI incidence when using NSDs could benefit from a long-term analysis. This was lacking in the studies selected. By including a long-term analysis of interventions, outcomes may have proved different from short-term effects, which can be misleading (Pelton and van Manen, 1996). Using the NSDs for longer could have potentially showed injuries return to the levels before the NSDs were introduced because healthcare workers may

revert to their usual practices once a short-term study has finished. Some studies have shown that NSIs still occur despite NSDs

being used (Sohn et al, 2004; Tarigan et al, 2015; Dulon et al, 2017). Long-term studies are required for this subject to give more of a balanced account of their lasting effectiveness and trends on injury rates. However, this type of research can have problems with dropout rates, maintaining funding, and waning enthusiasm among participants and researchers, all of which ultimately impacts on the validity of results.

Denominators The chosen studies had different denominators used to analyse the effects of the interventions to reduce NSIs. The denominators for the self-reported NSIs were patient-days and patients (Valls et al, 2007), medical devices purchased (Sossai et al, 2010; Tosini et al, 2010; Hoffmann et al, 2013; Sossai et al, 2016) and numbers of healthcare workers (van der Molen et al, 2011).

Tarigan et al (2015) stated that many studies measuring the effect of introducing NSDs on NSIs have given the denominator as a combination of the number of devices used, devices purchased, full-time equivalent staff, working hours, occupied beds, patient days and healthcare workers. It has been argued that the best denominator would be patient days, because of the availability of accurate figures (Chen and Gluud, 2005). The author argues that a standard denominator needs to be recognised across all NHS trusts so comparisons can be made on which are performing well in the reduction of NSIs and which are failing. Currently there is no objective measure across NHS trusts.

Ethical approval The authors of the six chosen studies did not indicate whether ethical approval had been sought or gained for the research including the authors of the RCT. The investigators may not have sought ethical approval as they considered introduction of the NSDs and training in their use would reduce the risk of harm to participants. Ethics screening tools are available to determine if ethical approval is required (Endacott, 2004), but their use was not discussed in the studies. The studies might have benefited from alluding to the potential risks (of using new devices) and the inclusion of ethical terminology such as ‘maintaining privacy’, ‘confidentiality of data’ and obtaining ‘informed consent’ from participants. These terms, indicating good research accountability, were missing from the studies and should have been documented to ensure the research was conducted in a safe and principled way (Smajdor et al, 2009).

There is an emphasis on quality improvement programmes in the NHS (Wenborn and Mountain, 2016). Making a distinction between what constitutes audit, quality improvement and research is important in the context of enhanced clinical and research governance requirements. When conducting research clinicians should not rely on professional judgement as an alternative to formal ethics committee procedures. The ethical approval process analyses the risks involved in the research and how to manage those risks, helping to protect participants from harm (Endacott, 2004; Smajdor et al, 2009). Ethical approval also helps in cases of litigation if, for example, any of the participants in a study acquired an NSI using the NSDs.

British Journal of Nursing, 2018, Vol 27, No 16 947


2 01

8 M


ea lt h ca

re L




Alternative research techniques The addition of qualitative research techniques or using a mixed methodology could have improved the studies. Incorporating observations or interviews may have added another dimension to research into preventing NSIs. Interviewing participants may have elicited information on NSIs that were not reported. Healthcare workers may not have reported NSIs due to the time it takes to complete the reporting process. Interviews may have gathered information on why staff did not report a NSI and which NSI- preventing measures work in practice. Counting the number of NSIs reported may have been a misrepresentation (even a falsification if all NSIs were not reported) of the problem, and including a richer, deeper understanding of the work environment and practices through interviews may have elicited further precursors to injuries. During data analysis, qualitative data can assist with interpreting, clarifying, describing, and validating quantitative results (Doorenbos, 2014).

Bias The chosen studies were liable to researcher bias, where the researchers performing the research influence the results, in order to portray a certain outcome (Pannucci and Wilkins, 2010). Another factor was that the researchers in the six chosen studies were not nurses but doctors or academics based in universities, so findings may not be applicable to NHS nurses. Nurses need to be more involved in research, especially when the outcome could affect their clinical practice. Barriers to nursing research have been found to be a lack of time, funding or practical support, and difficulties navigating regulations (Tanner and Hale, 2002). More nursing research will enhance the status of nursing and help to improve nursing care.

Funding All the studies disclosed that funding was obtained to support the research. There can be a negative perception of funded research, as it can be seen as potentially skewing the results in favour of a new drug or device. This potential bias should be highlighted in the research and identification of the supporting company should always be given (Pannucci and Wilkins, 2010).

Thematic analysis of findings and discussion This systematised review was unable to find a sound scientific methodology in any of the chosen studies. The studies showed evidence of bias in the areas of selection, study design, blinding and lack of dropout rates. Attention to these areas in future studies would improve research quality and enable generalisations to be made to the wider population. The recurring themes from the research were that training and safety devices can prevent NSIs; however, information on what form the delivery of the training should take and what type of device is most effective was absent.

Training Descriptions of the training provided varied in all studies. Some studies did not mention the content of the training (Tosini et al, 2010; Hoffmann et al, 2013). Training in two of the studies included several hours of taught sessions, including hands-on training with the devices, with some of the training being

provided by the manufacturers of the NSDs (Valls et al, 2007; Hoffmann et al, 2013). Training given to the participants in three studies (Valls et al, 2007; Sossai et al, 2010; van der Molen et al, 2011) was varied and incorporated taught sessions depicting issues around preventing, managing and reporting injuries. Some studies included the dangers of blood-borne infectious diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV in their training (Valls et al, 2007; Sossai et al, 2010; Hoffmann et al, 2013; Sossai et al, 2016). The training highlighted practices to minimise the risk of exposure to these infections and the wearing of personal protective equipment. Written instructions regarding the handling of sharp needles and other instruments were provided to participants with risks relating to exposure to blood. Training depicted standard precautions and mandatory protocols to adopt in case of injury or exposure and to whom and how to report any injury.

Training as an intervention to prevent NSIs was of particular interest to the author as it was hoped that information gathered here would inform and instruct future training sessions to prevent NSIs in the author’s workplace. As an infection prevention and control (IPC) nurse who teaches NSI prevention, the mode of delivering this training was of particular interest. However, information on this topic was lacking in the six selected studies. Content, delivery techniques, measures of assessing training needs, modes of delivery (such as e-learning, face-to-face learning in the classroom, webinars, workbooks and lectures) and competency assessing were overlooked in the research. This was disappointing as the author was hoping use such information to improve practice in her trust.

Training in the NHS Training can enhance the skills, capabilities and knowledge of staff in the workplace (Royal College of Nursing (RCN), 2013). The training process in the NHS is continuous, as new skills, knowledge and techniques are frequently introduced. Appropriately trained workers waste less time, money and resources and have fewer accidents (Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2016). So it is imperative that organisations get the training right. There are many challenges in delivering training in the NHS, such as the overwhelming number of subjects that need to be covered. Training can soon become out of date as new directives are published and new equipment is purchased. It also often takes nurses away from patient care. Tailoring training to an organisation’s or individual’s needs will help overcome many challenges. All training must have clearly stated learning outcomes.

The way in which training is delivered also needs more attention; an external trainer can be beneficial as they may be an expert in the field and deliver the training in a professional and interesting way. However, they may be expensive and lack awareness of the culture of the organisation.

Delivering training in the NHS can be challenging as it has to be delivered to members of different hierarchies, cultures and generations (Sarre et al, 2018). Trainers must consider different learning styles, languages and how members of different generations prefer to be trained. Ensuring that all staff are fully engaged in learning is another of the problems faced in training and development. An effective approach to ensuring engagement is to make the trainees stakeholders in their own

948 British Journal of Nursing, 2018, Vol 27, No 16

© 2

01 8


H ea

lt h ca

re L




learning. Undertaking personal staff appraisals, using surveys and appealing to their organisational and individual goals can make employees feel that they have been fully involved in training development (The King’s Fund, 2015).

A training method most commonly used in the NHS is e-learning. This is probably because it is inexpensive, quick and does not entail staff leaving the workplace. However, this model of training can be problematic in trying to capture all staff due to the lack of computers and staff unable to find time to complete it during their busy duties. Using e-learning also does not guarantee that staff will increase their knowledge on preventing NSIs as there is sometimes no discussion, tests or competency assessment afterwards. E-learning for teaching prevention of NSIs can be challenging for IPC staff, as it is fraught with issues—staff may have minimal computer literacy skills, there may be technical problems, and issues with time management and self-motivation (RCN, 2013). These may all negatively impact staff learning about NSI prevention.

The author believes that the delivery of training needs to improve if the NHS is to make a noticeable reduction in NSIs. Training can be delivered via many multi-modal routes (Zafar et al, 2009) and its success tested using pre- and post-training questionnaires (Rajkumari et al, 2015). NSI prevention training in the NHS needs to be more creative to engage staff and make learning more worthwhile, interesting and meaningful. Practical training in relation to NSD use may be more successful in helping to prevent NSIs than e-learning. Further research is required on the effectiveness of training and the reduction of NSIs.

Needle-safety devices The studies in this systematised review (n=6) described the NSDs used and the practices for which they were being used. Practices undertaken using the NSDs were phlebotomy, intramuscular injections, subcutaneous injections, intravenous access and blood gas analysis. All the studies except two (Valls et al, 2007; van der Molen et al, 2011) included and explained the characteristics of the NSDs and categorised the NSDs as either ‘passive’ or ‘active’ devices. Passive NSDs do not require additional steps to initiate the safety feature.

Two literature reviews (Parantainen et al, 2011;Yang and Mullan, 2011) have observed that passive devices were the most successful type of NSD in reducing NSIs. Passive devices in the study by van der Molen et al (2011) also showed a reduction in NSIs but the study did not make a comparison with active NSDs. Active NSDs require the healthcare worker to press the syringe so the needle retracts after use on the patient and this may be the reason for the increased difficulty when using them. Use of passive devices may reduce the likelihood of NSIs as the user can safely cover the needle and does not have to press to retract the needle.

Only one study compared passive and active devices (Tosini et al, 2010) and also subdivided the active NSDs into those with a protective sliding shield, those with a protective needle shield aligned to the bevel-up position and toppling over the needle, and those with a semi-automatic safety feature (i.e. an automatic safety feature requiring one-handed activation by pushing a button or a plunger). An evaluation of the

effectiveness of the different NSDs found that the passive devices were more effective in reducing NSIs (Tosini et al, 2010). Specifically, self-retracting lancets (for capillary blood collection) showed the lowest incidence of NSI among the product types included in the study. The study did not evaluate passive venous blood-collection devices and so caution should be exercised so as not to generalise findings obtained from just one type of blood-collection device.

Results and implications for practice This review found that nurses have the highest incidences of NSIs (van der Molen et al, 2011; Motaarefi et al, 2016), so targeting this group of staff for raising awareness and training is imperative. However, as it is not only nurses who use sharps equipment, all healthcare workers (doctors, laboratory staff, phlebotomists etc.) prone to injuries must receive training. Studies have shown that less experienced staff have more NSIs (Sharma et al, 2010) so particular attention is required to inform new starters in healthcare organisations about the prevention of NSIs. Fourie and Keogh (2011) argued that educational initiatives on needle safety should be focused on safety during administering injections and recapping of needles (now banned in the NHS) as most injuries occur during these times. Therefore, specifically targeting training and injury prevention around these procedures is vital.

As a result of undertaking this review, further improvements in clinical practice to prevent NSIs have been revealed. Training compliance of all healthcare workers should be monitored centrally in all NHS trusts, with compliance rates being produced monthly to ascertain if staff have completed the mandatory training (Dulon et al 2017). In consultation with unions and staff, trusts might consider penalising, fining or disciplining staff for not undertaking their training. A root cause analysis (RCA) on all NSIs is also a consideration to reduce NSIs. However, the author believes that RCAs can be ineffective if undertaken by inexperienced personnel, if they are not supported by managers, and can lead to a focus on ineffectual action plans that do not take wider organisational constraints into consideration (NSIs still occur because managers do not want to pay for RCAs). To maximise learning from RCAs, descriptions of implemented risk controls and their effectiveness need to be shared within and across organisations (Peerally et al, 2016).

Training to prevent NSIs is fundamental and requires a radical shift in the way it is currently delivered. The author believes that reliance on e-learning as a panacea is futile, with many staff unwilling or unable to do it, and with little benefit gained from those staff who have done it, in the author’s experience. Other ways of delivering training need to be considered. This review provided no useful models for the delivery of training. NHS England (2014) has stressed the importance of training, retraining and retaining staff. However, a huge investment is required. Training to prevent NSIs should be regularly reviewed, audited for its effectiveness and be part of the annual mandatory training requirements to which all NHS organisations (and non- NHS organisations) should adhere (Beswick et al, 2012).

The training required when introducing new NSDs (Cheetham et al, 2016) can be provided by representatives from manufacturers or led by trained clinicians. Training should involve

British Journal of Nursing, 2018, Vol 27, No 16 949


2 01

8 M


ea lt h ca

re L




practical sessions focusing on the different procedures undertaken, such as blood collection or injections (Tosini et al, 2010). Further research on what constitutes effective training in the NHS is required. An inspection carried out in 2015-16 within 40 NHS

organisations across England, Scotland and Wales revealed that 83% were not complying with sharps regulations (HSE, 2016). The HSE inspection found there was still widespread use of non- safe devices, staff not being provided with adequate information and a lack of consistency with reporting injuries. This is obviously disappointing considering the European Directive had been published 6 years earlier (European Council, 2010). However, due to the political landscape changing and the introduction of austerity measures into the NHS, many organisations had to make some difficult decisions in terms of cost savings and perhaps staff training and the introduction of modern safety devices were the unfortunate casualties (NHS England, 2014).

This systematised review has shown that NSDs do reduce NSIs and organisations should be using them as a means of reducing injuries. There is minimal evidence that a passive NSD is safer to use than an active NSD or vice versa (Tosini et al, 2010; Yang and Mullan, 2011). Further research on this is required to analyse which types of devices are the safest to use. An evaluation is required periodically when NSDs are introduced to measure their efficacy and any possible changes to injury rates that have occurred. When safeguarding/incident forms are completed because a healthcare worker has sustained an NSI despite using an NSD, this should trigger an investigation to determine what happened, why it happened and how such an injury could be prevented in the future (HSE, 2016). Findings should also be reported to the manufacturers that supplied the NSD.

Nurses should be aware that, despite their potential to reduce NSIs rates, NSIs can still occur when using NSDs (Sohn et al, 2004; Tarigann et al, 2015; Dulon et al, 2017) and no study has shown that their use has completely eradicated NSIs. Therefore any new device should be approached with a degree of caution. Implementing any change into practice has many challenges and these changes to practice should be managed using project management skills and change management theories, and involve all stakeholders (Gopee and Galloway, 2017). These are the leadership and management philosophies that are vital to integrate research and theory into new practices to develop an evidence base and improve safety (Gopee and Galloway, 2017).

As well as the financial cost of an NSI, the psychological and human cost is also high, with healthcare workers comparing the effect to post-traumatic stress disorder (Green and Griffiths, 2013). Therefore it is imperative that occupational health (OH) departments that manage staff after NSIs offer support or counselling to stem the anxiety that the injury may cause (Wicker et al, 2014). However, the author notes that this may be an unrealistic expectation as many NHS trusts are unable to fund OH services adequately due to resource implications. Further improvements are about ensuring that IPC teams work closely with health and safety staff, and using OH at a strategic level for maintaining continuous improvement in the prevention and management of sharp injuries.

Procurement staff should also play a part in removing and replacing traditional sharps with safer devices and no non-safety devices should available on hospital equipment ordering systems (HSE, 2016). Reducing the costs of NSDs will also increase their appeal and present less of a barrier to using them (Mannocci et al, 2016). Finally, an initiative to improve practice and reduce NSIs

Table 2. Checklist to prevent a needlestick injury

Organisational level Yes No Notes

■ Are sharps injuries identified on the corporate risk register?

■ Is there an organisation-wide policy on the prevention and management of sharps injuries?

■ Is the prevention of sharps injuries on the agenda of the health and safety committee?

■ Do procurement and health and safety officers attend the infection prevention and control (IPC) committee?

■ Are data on sharps injuries reported to the IPC committee?

■ Do risk assessments exist for sharps injuries at a ward/ departmental level or for procedures?

■ Have control measures been introduced in line with the hierarchy of controls (Royal College of Nursing, 2013)?

■ Is training provided for all at-risk staff on the prevention of sharps injuries, safe use of equipment, reporting and first aid measures?

■ Is training attendance compliance monitored?

■ Are sharps injuries (i.e. after needle-safety device use) routinely investigated and root causes identified?

Ward/department/community level Yes No Notes

■ Are there information posters available for staff on dealing with a sharps injury, with contact numbers for reporting?

■ Do staff know how and to whom to report a sharps injury?

■ Are accident-reporting systems (online or hard copy) readily available for staff?

■ Are staff given feedback on the results of incident investigations?

■ Are staff offered hepatitis B vaccination?

■ Are staff able to attend training on sharps safety?

■ Where possible, are sharps and needles replaced with needless systems?

■ Are safer needle devices used instead of conventional needles devices?

■ Are sharps bins in use compliant with current standards (BS7320:1990)?

■ Are sharps bins readily available at the point of use?

■ Do staff know how to assemble and use sharps bins?

■ Do staff know how to dispose of (and lock) sharps bins?

■ Are sharps bins closed and removed when three quarters full?

■ Is personal protective equipment (gloves, goggles, aprons) readily available for use with sharps equipment?

950 British Journal of Nursing, 2018, Vol 27, No 16

© 2

01 8


H ea

lt h ca

re L




is the adoption of a safety checklist (RCN, 2013). This amended version by the author can be used as part of a workplace inspection or a sharps safety audit (Table 2). The author has included all the pertinent points amassed from the wealth of literature included in this review and produced a list of policies, procedures and practices that prevent NSIs. It is hoped that adherence to this checklist would assist organisations in reducing their injury rates.

The use of either a passive or active NSD combined with training is an effective strategy to reduce NSIs. However, caution is required as this systematised review was unable to provide strong methodological, unbiased, long-term evidence to support such a statement. Although the six chosen studies provided findings that both NSDs and training increased staff awareness and reduced NSIs, their methodological approaches were flawed and they were small studies. They had a large number of biases in terms of location, language, publication and researcher, and were conducted by doctors and university academics. More nursing research is needed. Longer-term research is required to bridge the knowledge gaps that exist on what constitutes effective training and what type of device (active or passive) is more robust and reliable to achieve a consistent (and cost-effective) benefit for healthcare workers.

This review has highlighted implications for practice and discovered ways in which nurses can prevent NSIs. Improving practices with training, adopting NSDs and being aware of the financial and human costs of a NSIs is imperative if safety is to improve. The delivery of training to improve NSIs needs to improve with financial commitment and a reduced reliance on e-learning in this area. Educators and trainers need to be more creative and adopt models that engage healthcare workers by making learning interesting and meaningful. This may help to improve sharps safety. Further work is required to encourage staff to use NSDs, with manufacturers playing their part in making them easy to use, reducing costs and offering training. Under- reporting of sharps incidents and injuries also needs to improve.

The findings from this review have enabled the author to create a checklist (Table 2) which will be reviewed by the IPC team with a view to being introduced into the author’s organisation. Annual audits of this checklist (with a comparison of NSI rates) will ensure the components have been used and practice has improved. Information on the hazards of using needles and the causes of NSIs need to be readily available to staff so they can acknowledge these risks and take steps to mitigate against them. Further research is required to support nurses in preventing NSIs, improving practices and reinforcing the use of evidence-based practice. BJN

Declaration of interest: none

Beitz JM. Writing the researchable question. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2006; 33(2):122–124

Beswick A, Robinson E, Evans G, Codling A for the Health and Safety Executive. An evaluation of the efficacy of safer sharps devices Systematic review. 2012. https://tinyurl.com/y86ok2gv (accessed 9 August 2018)

Brusaferro S, Calligaris L, Farneti F, Gubian F, Londero C, Baldo V. Educational programmes and sharps injuries in health care workers. Occup Med (Lond). 2009; 59(7):512–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqp112

Catalán Gómez MT, Sol Vidiella J, Castellà Castellà M, Castells Bo C, Losada Pla N, Espuny JL. Implementation of safety devices: biological accident prevention [article in Spanish]. Rev Enferm. 2010; 33(4):50–54

Cheetham S, Thompson SC, Liira J, Afilaka OA, Liira H. Education and training

for preventing sharps injuries and splash exposures in healthcare workers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016; (1): CD012060. https:// doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012060

Chen W, Gluud C. Vaccines for preventing hepatitis B in health-care workers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; (4):CD000100. https://doi. org/10.1002/14651858.cd000100.pub3

Costigliola V, Frid A, Letondeur C, Strauss K. Needlestick injuries in European nurses in diabetes. Diabetes Metab. 2012; 38(Suppl 1):S9-14. https://doi. org/10.1016/s1262-3636(12)70976-x

Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003; 7(27):iii–x, 1–173

Doorenbos AZ. Mixed methods in nursing research : an overview and practical examples. Kango Kenkyu. 2014; 47(3):207–217

Dubben H-H, Beck-Bornholdt H-P. Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias. BMJ. 2005; 331(7514):433–434. https://doi. org/10.1136/bmj.38478.497164.f7

Dulon M, Lisiak B, Wendeler D, Nienhaus A. Causes of needlestick injuries in three healthcare settings: analysis of accident notifications registered six months after the implementation of EU Directive 2010/32/EU in Germany. J Hosp Infect. 2017; 95(3):306–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jhin.2016.11.015

Endacott R. Clinical research 2: legal and ethical issues in research. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2004; 20(5):313–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2004.04.006

European Council. 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. 2010. https://tinyurl.com/y8lv9nfw (accessed 10 August 2018)

Falagas ME, Karydis I, Kostogiannou I. Percutaneous exposure incidents of the health care personnel in a newly founded tertiary hospital: a prospective study. PLoS ONE. 2007; 2(2):e194. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000194

Fourie WJ, Keogh JJ. The need for continuous education in the prevention of needlestick injuries. Contemp Nurse. 2011; 39(2):194–205. https://doi. org/10.5172/conu.2011.194

Funes-Artiaga J, Company A, Martín-González L, Triviño-Nolla C, Contel- Segura JC. Performance improvement project for the introduction of safety devices: interdisciplinary approach and participation of professionals [article in Spanish]. Rev Enferm. 2012; 35(3):46–54

Ganczak M, Szczeniowski A, Szych Z. 997 Knowledge and practice of injection safety among surgical nurses in Poland: an intervention study. Injury Prevention 2016; 22:A354-A355

Gopee N, Galloway J. Leadership and Management in Healthcare. 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications; 2017

Green B, Griffiths EC. Psychiatric consequences of needlestick injury. Occup Med (Lond). 2013; 63(3):183–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqt006

Health and Safety Executive. Prevention and management of sharps injuries: inspection of NHS organisations. Report of an inspection initiative 2015/16. 2016. https://tinyurl.com/y7uxv65s (accessed 10 August 2018)

Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al for the Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343:d5928

Hoffmann C, Buchholz L, Schnitzler P. Reduction of needlestick injuries in healthcare personnel at a university hospital using safety devices. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013; 8(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-8-20

Huang X, Lin J, Demner-Fushman D. Evaluation of PICO as a Knowledge Representation for Clinical Questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006; 2006:359–363

The King’s Fund. Staff engagement: six building blocks for harnessing the creativity and enthusiasm of NHS staff. 2015. https://tinyurl.com/y786xv7g (accessed 10 August 2018)

Lamontagne F, Abiteboul D, Lolom I et al. Role of safety-engineered devices in preventing needlestick injuries in 32 French hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007; 28(1):18–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/510814

Little MA, Hussein T, Lambert M, Dickson SJ. Percutaneous venepuncture practice in a large urban teaching hospital. Clin Med (Lond). 2007; 7(3):243–249

KEY POINTS ■ This literature search used the systematised review process to look at

whether training and needle safety devices can prevent needlestick injuries

■ The article examined whether training and needle safety devices prevent needlestick injuries

■ Further research is required to show what type of needle-safety devices (active or passive) are more effective in reducing needlestick injuries

■ More published research on needlestick injuries is required in the UK

British Journal of Nursing, 2018, Vol 27, No 16 951


2 01

8 M


ea lt h ca

re L




Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Pratt RJ et al. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect. 2014; 86(Suppl 1):S1-70. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0195-6701(13)60012-2

Mannocci A, De Carli G, Di Bari V et al. How much do needlestick injuries cost? A systematic review of the economic evaluations of needlestick and sharps injuries among healthcare personnel. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016; 37(6):635–646. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2016.48

Martínez-Mesa J, González-Chica DA, Bastos JL, Bonamigo RR, Duquia RP. Sample size: how many participants do I need in my research? An Bras Dermatol. 2014; 89(4):609–615

Motaarefi H, Mahmoudi H, Mohammadi E, Hasanpour-Dehkordi A. Factors associated with needlestick injuries in health care occupations: A systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10(8):IE01–IE04. https://doi. org/10.7860/jcdr/2016/17973.8221

NHS Employers. Managing the risks of sharps injuries. 2015. https://tinyurl. com/ybsbofe4 (accessed 10 August 2018)

NHS England. Five year forward view. 2014 https://tinyurl.com/oxq92je (accessed 10 August 2018)

Nicholson PJ. How to undertake a systematic review in an occupational setting. Occup Environ Med. 2007; 64(5):353–358, 303. https://doi. org/10.1136/oem.2006.031153

Norris SL, Atkins D, Bruening W. et al. Observational studies in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(11):1178–1186. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.027

Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 126(2):619–625. https://doi.org/10.1097/ prs.0b013e3181de24bc

Parantainen A, Verbeek JH, Lavoie M-C, Pahwa M. Blunt versus sharp suture needles for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents in surgical staff. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(11):CD009170. https://doi. org/10.1002/14651858.cd009170.pub2

Peerally MF, Carr S, Waring J, Dixon-Woods M. The problem with root cause analysis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017; 26(5):417–422. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjqs-2016-005511

Pelton MR, van Manen FT. Benefits & pitfalls of long-term research: a case study of black bears in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 1996; 24(3):443-450.

Prunet B, Meaudre E, Montcriol A et al. A prospective randomized trial of two safety peripheral intravenous catheters. Anesth Analg. 2008; 107(1):155– 158. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e318174df5f

Prüss-Üstün A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005; 48(6):482–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20230

Rajkumari N, Mathur P, Gunjiyal J, Misra MC. Effectiveness of intensive interactive classes and hands on practice to increase awareness about sharps injuries and splashes among health care workers. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9(7):DC17-21. https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2015/12833.6219

Royal College of Nursing. Needlestick injuries. The point of prevention. 2009. https://tinyurl.com/y8f3ucrk (accessed 10 August 2018)

Royal College of Nursing. Sharps safety: RCN guidance to support the implementation of the health and safety (sharp instruments in healthcare regulations). 2013. https://tinyurl.com/ybj76qbr (accessed 10 August 2018)

Sarre S, Maben J, Aldus C et al. The challenges of training, support and assessment of healthcare support workers: A qualitative study of experiences in three English acute hospitals. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018; 79:145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.11.010

Sharma R, Rasania S, Verma A, Singh S. Study of prevalence and response to needle stick injuries among health care workers in a tertiary care hospital

in Delhi, India. Indian J Community Med. 2010; 35(1):74–77. https://doi. org/10.4103/0970-0218.62565

Smajdor A, Sydes MR, Gelling L, Wilkinson M. Applying for ethical approval for research in the United Kingdom. BMJ. 2009; 339:b4013

Sohn S, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA, Zuccotti G. Effect of implementing safety- engineered devices on percutaneous injury epidemiology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004; 25(7):536–542. https://doi.org/10.1086/502436

Song F, Hooper L, Loke Y. Publication bias: what is it? How do we measure it? How do we avoid it? Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials. 3 July 2013. https://tinyurl.com/y7dtxvha (accessed 10 August 2018)

Sossai D, Puro V, Chiappatoli L et al. Using an intravenous catheter system to prevent needlestick injury. Nurs Stand. 2010; 24(29):42–46. https://doi. org/10.7748/ns2010.

Sossai D, Di Guardo M, Foscoli R et al. Efficacy of safety catheter devices in the prevention of occupational needlestick injuries: applied research in the Liguria Region (Italy). J Prev Med Hyg. 2016; 57(2):E110-114

Tanner J, Hale C. Research-active nurses’ perceptions of the barriers to undertaking research in practice. Journal of Research in Nursing. 2002; 7(5)363-375

Tarigan LH, Cifuentes M, Quinn M, Kriebel D. Prevention of needle-stick injuries in healthcare facilities: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015; 36(7):823–829. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2015.50

Tejerina MB, García BR, Tocino LS, Noval ML, Martín AS, González SV. Comparative study of safety needles and non-safety needles. Revista de la Sociedad Española de Enfermería Nefrológica. 2008; 11(4):17-22

Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004; 1(3):176–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2004.04006.x

Tosini W, Ciotti C, Goyer F et al. Needlestick injury rates according to different types of safety-engineered devices: results of a French multicenter study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31(4):402–407. https://doi. org/10.1086/651301

Valls V, Lozano MS, Yánez R et al. Use of safety devices and the prevention of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007; 28(12):1352–1360. https://doi.org/10.1086/523275

van der Molen HF, Zwinderman KA, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW. Better effect of the use of a needle safety device in combination with an interactive workshop to prevent needle stick injuries. Safety Science. 2011; 49(8-9):1180-1186.

Wenborn J, Mountain G. Conducting research in practice: lessons learned. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2016: 79(4):4

Wicker S, Jung J, Allwinn R, Gottschalk R, Rabenau HF. Prevalence and prevention of needlestick injuries among health care workers in a German university hospital. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008a; 81(3):347–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-007-0219-7

Wicker S, Ludwig A-M, Gottschalk R, Rabenau HF. Needlestick injuries among health care workers: occupational hazard or avoidable hazard? Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2008b; 120(15–16):486–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00508-008-1011-8

Wicker S, Stirn AV, Rabenau HF, von Gierke L, Wutzler S, Stephan C. Needlestick injuries: causes, preventability and psychological impact. Infection. 2014; 42(3):549–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-014- 0598-0

Yang L, Mullan B. Reducing needle stick injuries in healthcare occupations: an integrative review of the literature. ISRN Nurs. 2011; 2011:315432. https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/315432

Zafar A, Habib F, Hadwani R et al. Impact of infection control activities on the rate of needle stick injuries at a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan over a period of six years: an observational study. BMC Infect Dis. 2009; 9:78. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-9-78

CPD reflective questions

■ What are the main causes of needlestick injuries in your workplace and how could these have been prevented?

■ Does your workplace employ methods to reduce needlestick injuries, such as training and needle-safety devices? Is the content of training in relation to the prevention of needlestick injury effective and is there a system of review to analyse this?

■ Reflect on whether the use of the checklist (Table 2) would help to prevent needlestick injuries in your organisation

■ Are needlestick injuries being investigated and their psychological impact on staff being recognised in your organisation?

952 British Journal of Nursing, 2018, Vol 27, No 16

© 2

01 8


H ea

lt h ca

re L




Copyright of British Journal of Nursing is the property of Mark Allen Publishing Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Our Service Charter
1. Professional & Expert Writers: Nursing Experts .org only hires the best. Our writers are specially selected and recruited, after which they undergo further training to perfect their skills for specialization purposes. Moreover, our writers are holders of masters and Ph.D. degrees. They have impressive academic records, besides being native English speakers.
2. Top Quality Papers: Our customers are always guaranteed of papers that exceed their expectations. All our writers have +5 years of experience. This implies that all papers are written by individuals who are experts in their fields. In addition, the quality team reviews all the papers before sending them to the customers.
3. Plagiarism-Free Papers: All papers provided by Nursing Experts .org are written from scratch. Appropriate referencing and citation of key information are followed. Plagiarism checkers are used by the Quality assurance team and our editors just to double-check that there are no instances of plagiarism.
4. Timely Delivery: Time wasted is equivalent to a failed dedication and commitment. Nursing Experts .org is known for timely delivery of any pending customer orders. Customers are well informed of the progress of their papers to ensure they keep track of what the writer is providing before the final draft is sent for grading.
5. Affordable Prices: Our prices are fairly structured to fit in all groups. Any customer willing to place their assignments with us can do so at very affordable prices. In addition, our customers enjoy regular discounts and bonuses.
6. 24/7 Customer Support: Nursing Experts .org, we have put in place a team of experts who answer to all customer inquiries promptly. The best part is the ever-availability of the team. Customers can make inquiries anytime.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Services
  • Prices
  • Guarantees
  • Contact Us
Free resources
  • Free Essays
  • Essay tips
  • Essay types
  • Plagiarism Checker
Dissertation help
  • Free consultation
  • Essay examples
  • Buy essay
  • Dissertation assistance
  • Free dissertations
  • Coursework help
nursingexperts.org  ©2017- 2021  All rights reserved. Terms of use | Privacy Policy