Barriers and facilitators to nurses' acceptance of and implications for injury rates of an IV catheter safety device

This study has the purpose of determining the barriers and facilitators to nurses' acceptance of the Johnson and Johnson Protectiv®* Plus IV catheter safety needle device and implications for needlestick injuries at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Houston, Texas. A one-time cross-sectional survey of 620 responding nurses was conducted by this researcher during December, 2000. The study objectives were to: (1) describe the perceived (a) organizational and individual barriers and facilitators and (b) acceptance of implementation of the IV catheter device; (2) examine the relative importance of these predictors; (3) describe (a) perceived changes in needlestick injuries after implementation of the device; (b) the reported incidence of injuries; and (c) the extent of underreporting by nurses; and (4) examine the relative importance of (a) the preceding predictors and (b) acceptance of the device in predicting perceived changes in needlestick injuries. Safety climate and training were evaluated as organizational factors. Individual factors evaluated were experience with the device, including time using it and frequency of use, and background information, including nursing unit, and length of time as a nurse in this hospital and in total nursing career. The conceptual framework was based upon the safety climate model. Descriptive statistics and multiple and logistic regression were utilized to address the study objectives. ^ The findings showed widespread acceptance of the device and a strong perception that it reduced the number of needlesticks. Acceptance was notably predicted by adequate training, appropriate time between training and device use, solid safety climate, and short length of service, in that order. A barrier to acceptance was nurses' longtime of use of previous needle technologies. Over four-fifths of nurses were compliant in always using the device. Compliance had two facilitators: length of time using device and, to a lesser extent, safety climate. Rates of compliance tended to be lower among nurses in units in which the device was frequently used. ^ High quality training and an atmosphere of caring about nurse safety stand out as primary facilitators that other institutions would need to adopt in order to achieve maximum success in implementing safety programs involving utilization of new safety devices. ^

A feasibility study for assessing building occupants' indoor air quality expectations compared to nationally recognized standards

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) can have significant implications for health, productivity, job performance, and operating cost. Professional experience in the field of indoor air quality suggests that high expectations (better than nationally established standards) (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)) of workplace indoor air quality lead to increase air quality complaints. To determine whether there is a positive association between expectations and indoor air quality complaints, a one-time descriptive and analytical cross-sectional pilot study was conducted. Area Safety Liaisons (n = 330) at University of Texas Health Science Center – Houston were asked to answer a questionnaire regarding their expectations of four workplace indoor air quality indicators i.e., (temperature, relative humidity, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide) and if they experienced and reported indoor air quality problems. A chi-square test for independence was used to evaluate associations among the variables of interest. The response rate was 54% (n = 177). Results did not show significant associations between expectation and indoor air quality. However, a greater proportion of Area Safety Liaisons who expected indoor air quality indicators to be better than the established standard experienced greater indoor air quality problems. Similarly, a slightly higher proportion of Area Liaisons who expected indoor air quality indicators to be better than the standard reported greater indoor air quality complaints. ^ The findings indicated that a greater proportion of Area Safety Liaisons with high expectations (conditions that are beyond what is considered normal and acceptable by ASHRAE) experienced greater indoor air quality discomfort. This result suggests a positive association between high expectations and experienced and reported indoor air quality complaints. Future studies may be able to address whether the frequency of complaints and resulting investigations can be reduced through information and education about what are acceptable conditions.^