search for




 

Work Characteristics and Needlestick-Injury Status of Dental Hygienists
J Dent Hyg Sci 2024;24:190-9
Published online September 30, 2024;  https://doi.org/10.17135/jdhs.2024.24.3.190
© 2024 Korean Society of Dental Hygiene Science.

Yeon-Soon Park1 , Jeong-Hyun Lee2 , Jin-Soo Kim3 , Kyoung-Ok Yun3 , and Sung-Suk Bae1,†

1Department of Dental Hygiene, Hanseo University, Seosan 31962, 2Department of Oral Anatomy, Dental College of Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, 3Department of Dental Hygiene, Shinsung University, Dangjin 31801, Korea
Correspondence to: Sung-Suk Bae, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4338-0915
Department of Dental Hygiene, Hanseo University, 46 Hanseo 1-ro, Haemi-Myun, Seosan 31962, Korea
Tel: +82-41-660-1573, Fax: +82-41-660-1579, E-mail: ssbae@hanseo.ac.kr
Received August 21, 2024; Revised September 9, 2024; Accepted September 13, 2024.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Background: Dental hygienists have a significant risk of infection due to occupational injuries caused by needles and sharp instruments. This study aimed to evaluate the current status of needle and “sharp-instrument injuries” among dental hygienists and to propose improved preventive guidelines.
Methods: A total of 251 dental hygienists completed an online survey between August 1, 2023 and September 2, 2023. Data from 245 respondents were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 20, using independent t-tests and one-way analysis of variance to assess the frequency of injuries and their correlation with job characteristics.
Results: Among the 251 dental hygienists, 77.6% had experienced needle or sharp-instrument injuries, with an average of 4.97 incidents per person. Infection prevention education significantly reduced the number of injuries, and participants with education exhibited better infection control practices than those without. Most injuries occurred during “instrument cleaning or maintenance” and “anesthesia preparation or disposal,” with “scalers, probes, and curettes” being the main culprits. Hands were the most frequently injured body parts.
Conclusion: Preventive measures, continuous education, and improved guidelines are required to create a safer dental working environment.
Keywords : Dental hygienists, Needlestick injuries, Occupational exposure, Prevention and control, Sharps injury
Introduction

1.Background

Dental and other healthcare professionals frequently perform invasive procedures with significant occupational exposure to blood, resulting in a high risk of infection1,2). Needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries occur frequently among healthcare workers and may lead to infectious diseases3-5). Exposure of the damaged mucous membrane and skin to biological hazards such as blood and other bodily fluids can transmit pathogenic microorganisms, making needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries the major causes of infection6,7). Therefore, understanding biological hazards and taking preventive measures against them are necessary.

Needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries occur frequently in dental settings. Dental procedures involve complex treatments and the use of sharp tools, such as scalers, probes, and burs, that can easily cause injuries5,6). This increases the risk of pathogenic microorganisms entering the body, leading to an increased risk of infectious disease transmission. In a study on dentists and students with clinical experience at a university-affiliated dental hospital in Korea, 93.5% of participants experienced at least one needlestick injury in one year, with 89.6% of dentists and 92.1% of dental hygienists reporting similar incidents8). Another study reported that 76.6% of dental hygienists8) had experienced needlestick or sharp-instrument injuries9). A 2010 study on infection control officers in Korean hospital-grade dental institutions reported an average of 1.83 needlestick injuries per person10).

Previous studies have shown that needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries are serious issues in the dental field, and systematic prevention and management are required to reduce such incidents. Since 2014, the Ministry of Health and Welfare in Korea has implemented a certification system for dental hospitals that provides legal standards for medical institution evaluation and infection control11,12). This system applies only to dental hospitals and larger institutions, and infection-control evaluation regulations for dental clinics are insufficient. Moreover, systematic safety standards addressing occupational hazards, such as needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries, are lacking.

Efforts have been made to improve personal protective equipment and accidental exposure management in university and dental hospitals13) following the release of standard policies for dental infection control in 2020. However, infection-control measures in dental institutions need to be strengthened to minimize the risks to healthcare workers from occupational exposure to potential infectious materials such as needles and sharp instruments9,14). Therefore, a safety management system that ensures the health and safety of both dental workers and healthcare consumers is essential.

Previous studies have reported a correlation between the existence of infection prevention guidelines and use of protective equipment and infection prevention practices15). Therefore, governmental institutional support and systematic regulatory policies are necessary. Healthcare workers and infection-control officers7) within medical institutions play crucial roles, and their actions can contribute to infection prevention. The Korean Society for Healthcare-Associated Infection Control and Prevention states that the use of disinfectants or squeezing wounds to treat injuries does not reduce the transmission risk of bloodborne pathogens16). Instead, prevention of needlestick and sharp instrument injuries is emphasized as the best approach. Hence, treating all patients as potential carriers of infectious diseases and implementing thorough preventive measures to avoid needlestick injuries are important.

2.Objectives

Previous studies have focused on statistical analyses of the incidence of needlestick and sharp instrument injuries. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the current status of needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries among dental hygienists, examine the occupational risks based on job characteristics, and evaluate the impact of infection prevention education. Furthermore, the study aimed to improve the occupational safety of dental hygienists by analyzing the causes of such accidents and proposing preventive measures.

Materials and Methods

1.Participants

This study was conducted from August 1 to September 2, 2023, and included 251 dental hygienists working in tertiary dental hospitals, general hospitals, and dental clinics. The selection criteria were determined using G-Power 3.1 (HHU, Germany, Düsseldorf). The test family was set to “F tests,” with a statistical test focused on “means.” A compromise approach was applied to compute the required sample size with an effect size (d) of 0.25, an alpha error probability (α err prob) of 0.05, and a power (1-β err prob) of 0.8. The number of groups was set as three. The calculated minimum sample size was 159 participants. However, to account for potential non-responders, 250 participants were selected. After explaining the purpose of the study, dental hygienists who understood the study and voluntarily participated were included. An online self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection, and after excluding those who provided insincere answers, 245 participants were included in the final analysis.

This study was approved by the institutional review board of Hanseo University. Written consent has been obtained from all participants.

2.Variables

The variables in this study were selected based on previous studies by Noh8) and Jeon9). The questionnaire consisted of 17 items, including eight items on general characteristics and working environment, three items on experiences and frequency of needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries, one item on job characteristics, one item on the habit of wearing protective gear, three items on actions taken after an injury, and one item on history of prevention education. Before the survey, a preliminary study was conducted on 36 dental hygienists using an online Google form, and the questionnaire was revised accordingly. The Cronbach’s α values for the practice of wearing protective gear and actions taken after an injury were 0.761 and 0.755, respectively, indicating a reliability coefficient ≥0.7.

3.Data analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The frequency of needlestick injuries according to the general characteristics was assessed using independent-samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance. Post-hoc analysis was performed using the Scheffé method. Multiple-response frequency analyses were performed for work-related factors, and independent-samples t-tests were used to assess the effect of infection prevention education on infection-control practices. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

1.General characteristics and number of stabbing accidents

The frequency of ‘experience of needlestick injuries within the past year’ and ‘work experience’ were significantly different according to the participants’ general characteristics (p<0.001) (Table 1). A total of 190 participants (77.6%) reported experiencing needlestick injuries in the previous year, with an average of 4.97 incidents per person (p<0.01). The highest frequency of needlestick injuries was observed among those with work experience ≤5 years, averaging 5.13 incidents per person. The mean incidence per person among participants with 6∼10 years and ≥10 years experience was 3.06 and 2.51, respectively. The ≤5 years experience group had the highest number of participants (112 [45.7%]) (p<0.01).

General Characteristics and Number of Needlestick Injuries (n=245)

General characteristic Category n (%) Number of needlestick injuries
(mean±SD)
t or F p
Experience of needlestick injuries Yes 190 (77.6) 4.97±4.98 7.395 0.001
No 55 (22.4) 0.00±0.00
Years of experience ≤5 y 112 (45.7) 5.13±6.13 7.768 0.001
6∼10 y 66 (26.9) 3.06±3.20
≥10 y 67 (27.4) 2.51±2.89
Workplace Dental clinic 191 (78.0) 3.99±4.78 1.624 0.199
Dental hospital 34 (13.8) 4.18±6.05
General/University hospital 20 (8.2) 2.00±2.40
Working hours <8 h 125 (51.0) 3.58±4.26 −0.925 0.356
≥8 h 120 (49.0) 4.15±5.39
Number of patients per day <20 54 (22.0) 3.25±3.35 0.979 0.377
20∼50 99 (40.4) 3.66±4.25
>50 92 (37.6) 4.39±6.04
Number of night shifts 0 time 105 (42.9) 3.16±4.22 1.904 0.151
1 time 94 (38.4) 4.40±5.12
≥2 times 46 (18.7) 4.33±5.48
Number of dental hygienists ≤5 122 (49.8) 3.56±4.43 −0.963 0.337
≥6 123 (50.2) 4.15±5.23

t-test, One-way analysis of variance and Post hoc test by Scheffe.

SD: standard deviation.



2.Infection-prevention education and number of stabbing accidents

In the work experience ≤5 years and 0 night shifts groups, the number of needlestick injuries was significantly different between the subgroups with and without infection prevention education in the previous year (both p<0.05) (Table 2). Among participants with work experience ≤5 years, the mean number of needlestick injuries in participants with and without infection prevention education was 4.43±5.48 and 7.03±7.19, respectively (p<0.05). Among participants with 0 night shifts, the mean number of needlestick injuries in participants with and without infection prevention education was 2.62±2.81 and 4.41±6.25, respectively (p<0.05).

Infection Prevention Education and Number of Needlestick Injuries

General characteristic Category n (%) Number of needlestick injuries
(mean±SD)
t or F p
Years of experience ≤5 y Yes 79 (32.2) 4.43±5.48 −2.149 0.034
No 33 (13.5) 7.03±7.19
6∼10 y Yes 46 (18.8) 3.24±3.39 0.682 0.497
No 20 (8.2) 2.65±2.77
≥10 y Yes 34 (13.9) 2.38±3.11 −0.357 0.722
No 33 (13.4) 2.64±2.69
Workplace Dental clinic Yes 113 (46.1) 3.72±4.19 −0.966 0.335
No 78 (31.8) 4.40±5.53
Dental hospital Yes 26 (10.6) 4.35±6.75 0.290 0.773
No 8 (3.3) 3.63±3.11
General/University hospital Yes 20 (8.2) 2.00±2.40 - -
No 0 (0) 0.00±0.00
Working hours <8 h Yes 77 (31.4) 3.34±3.79 −0.790 0.431
No 48 (19.6) 3.96±4.94
≥8 h Yes 82 (33.5) 3.85±5.19 −0.882 0.379
No 38 (15.5) 4.79±5.84
Number of patients per day <20 Yes 31 (12.7) 2.71±3.12 −1.558 0.125
No 23 (9.4) 4.13±3.55
20∼50 Yes 65 (26.5) 3.83±4.40 0.562 0.576
No 34 (13.9) 3.32±3.99
>50 Yes 63 (25.7) 3.81±5.27 −1.367 0.175
No 29 (11.8) 5.66±7.40
Number of night shifts 0 time Yes 73 (29.8) 2.62±2.81 −2.029 0.045
No 32 (13.1) 4.41±6.25
1 time Yes 54 (22.0) 4.54±5.00 0.290 0.772
No 40 (16.3) 4.23±5.34
≥2 times Yes 32 (13.1) 4.28±6.36 −0.083 0.934
No 14 (5.7) 4.43±2.73
Number of dental hygienists ≤5 Yes 84 (34.3) 3.23±4.57 −1.228 0.222
No 38 (15.5) 4.29±4.08
≥6 Yes 75 (30.6) 4.03±4.54 −0.337 0.736
No 48 (19.6) 4.35±6.20

t-test.

SD: standard deviation.



3.Degree of infection prevention education and infection control practice

In a survey conducted on a 1∼5 point Likert scale, evaluating infection control practices following needlestick and sharp instrument injuries in the past year, where 1 point represents “never practiced” and 5 points represents “always practiced,” The habitual use of protective equipment was not significantly different between participants. However, follow-up actions after needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries, including reporting to a supervisor and visiting the infection-control department or emergency room, were significantly different according to the infection prevention education status (p<0.01; Table 3).

Degree of Infection Prevention Education and Infection Control Practice

Category Action method Infection prevention education n (%) Degree of infection control practicea (mean±SD) t p
Habitual use of protective equipment Gloves Yes 159 (64.9) 4.47±0.72 0.013 0.989
No 86 (35.1) 4.47±0.64
Mask Yes 159 (64.9) 4.56±0.63 −0.781 0.436
No 86 (35.1) 4.62±0.50
Safety glasses or face shield Yes 159 (64.9) 3.47±1.20 1.925 0.055
No 86 (35.1) 3.16±1.19
Emergency measures post needlestick injury Wash with water only Yes 102 (63.7) 4.19±1.00 1.857 0.065
No 58 (36.3) 3.86±1.23
Apply disinfectant only Yes 104 (63.4) 3.68±1.26 1.707 0.090
No 60 (36.6) 3.85±1.36
Wash with water and apply disinfectant Yes 118 (65.9) 4.05±1.07 −0.793 0.429
No 61 (34.1) 3.73±1.31
Follow-up actions post needlestick injury Confirm and investigate patient history Yes 121 (64.4) 3.75±1.14 0.915 0.361
No 67 (35.6) 3.58±1.33
Report to supervisor Yes 117 (64.3) 1.50±0.92 2.641 0.009
No 65 (35.7) 1.17±0.52
Visit infection control office/emergency room Yes 113 (63.8) 1.50±0.92 2.641 0.009
No 64 (36.2) 1.17±0.52

t-test.

a(5-point Likert scale).



The mean scores for “reporting to a supervisor” under the “follow-up actions after needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries” category in the groups with and without infection prevention education within the past year were 1.50 and 1.17, respectively. Similarly, the mean scores for “visiting the infection control department or emergency room,” in the groups with and without infection prevention education were 1.50 and 1.17, respectively (p<0.01).

4.Experience and frequency of stabbing accidents based on work characteristics

The frequency analysis results of the multiple-response analysis for needlestick injuries experienced in the previous year by dental hygienists based on their work characteristics such as ‘task,’ ‘causative instrument,’ ‘injury site,’ and ‘department’ are presented in Table 4. In the ‘task’ category, 126 participants (27.9%) reported experiencing needlestick injuries during ‘instrument cleaning or maintenance,’ followed by 122 participants (27.1%) during ‘anesthesia preparation or disposal.’ However, the frequency of needlestick injuries was the highest during ‘surgical procedures’ with an average of 7.72±7.71 incidents, followed by ‘waste management’ with 7.26±7.33 incidents. In the ‘causative instrument’ category, 165 participants (32.5%) reported experiencing needlestick injuries while using ‘scalers, probes, or curettes,’ with the highest frequency of injuries occurring with ‘surgical scalpels or suture needles’ with an average of 6.43±7.06 incidents, followed by ‘powered instruments (drills, burs, or files)’ with 6.21±5.38 incidents. In the ‘injury site’ category, the most frequent site of needlestick injuries was the ‘hand’ in 187 participants (59.7%), whereas the highest frequency of injuries occurred at the ‘buttocks or feet’ with 7.67±6.84 incidents. In the ‘department’ category, the most frequent needlestick injuries occurred in the ‘comprehensive dental care department’ in 111 participants (35.8%), whereas the highest frequency of injuries occurred in the ‘periodontology department’ with 7.43±8.23 incidents, followed by the ‘conservative dentistry department’ with 7.03±8.40 incidents.

Needlestick Injury Experience and Frequency by ‘Task,’ ‘Causative Instrument,’ ‘Injury Site,’ and ‘Department’

Characteristic Needlestick injury experience in taska n (%) Needlestick injury frequency in task
(mean±SD)
Primary tasks Anesthesia preparation or disposal 122 (27.1) 5.43±5.61
Surgical procedures 29 (6.4) 7.72±7.71
Scaling 42 (9.3) 5.98±5.26
Handpiece preparation and use 98 (21.7) 6.06±5.68
Instrument cleaning or maintenance 126 (27.9) 5.56±5.66
Waste management 34 (7.5) 7.26±7.33
Causative instrument Anesthesia, general syringe 132 (26.0) 5.55±5.54
Surgical scalpel, suture needle 60 (11.8) 6.43±7.06
Scaler, probe, curette 165 (32.5) 5.16±4.84
Powered instruments (drill, bur, file) 114 (22.4) 6.21±5.38
Orthodontic wire or metal 37 (7.3) 5.46±5.58
Injury site Hand 187 (59.7) 5.01±5.00
Arm 48 (15.3) 6.29±3.94
Thigh or leg 63 (20.1) 6.90±5.70
Buttocks or foot 15 (4.8) 7.67±6.84
Department Comprehensive dental care department 111 (35.8) 5.49±4.81
Oral surgery 47 (15.2) 6.09±7.55
Periodontology 37 (11.9) 7.43±8.23
Prosthodontics 51 (16.5) 6.08±6.53
Conservative dentistry 33 (10.6) 7.03±8.40
Pediatric dentistry, orthodontics 31 (10.0) 5.06±5.87

SD: standard deviation.

aMultiple response frequency analysis.


Discussion

1.Key results

This study assessed the incidence of needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries during the past year among dental hygienists working in dental clinics and hospitals and aimed to propose improved prevention guidelines. A total of 251 dental hygienists voluntarily participated in the survey after understanding the study objective. Previous studies have primarily targeted dental hygienists working in higher-level institutions that often provide infection control related to hospital accreditation evaluations17). However, programs to prevent needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries are lacking in smaller dental clinics. In this study, 78.0% of the participants worked in dental clinics, which helped identify the risk factors for needlestick injuries in these settings. A total of 190 participants (77.6%) experienced needlestick injuries, which is consistent with the previously reported rates of 93.5%8) and 59.3%9) in domestic studies on dental workers. Furthermore, these results are similar to those in international studies. Studies on dentists in Australia4) and dental nurses and students in university hospitals in Iran18) reported incidences of 79.9% and 71.1%, respectively. These findings confirm the frequent occurrence of needlestick injuries and the risk of exposure to infection among dental healthcare workers. In this study, participants with lesser work experience had a higher frequency of injuries in the previous year. Participants with <5, 6∼10, and >10 years of experience reported an average of 5.13, 3.06, 2.51 injuries, respectively. Kim et al.16) reported that the incidence of infectious diseases was higher among healthcare workers in their twenties, particularly new nurses. This aligns with the findings in this study that dental hygienists with less work experience have a higher frequency of accidents, indicating the need for additional training and support. Regarding “infection prevention education,” the group with education and <5 years of experience reported a lower average number of needlestick injuries per person (4.43) compared to the group without education (7.03). Similarly, among those working in dental clinics, the groups with and without education reported an average of 3.72 and 4.40 injuries per person, respectively, and a small difference in incidence was observed.

All participants working in general and university hospitals reported receiving infection prevention education, indicating a significant difference between dental clinics and hospitals in terms of education. This is consistent with the findings of Jeong and Lee17), who reported that a lack of infection prevention education was more common among dental clinic workers. Kim et al.19) reported that 80.6% of dental clinics and 92.8% of university and dental hospitals provided infection prevention education, and hospitals had higher rates of education.

In this study, participants with infection prevention education had a lower frequency of needlestick injuries, particularly in scenarios like “night shifts,” where the group with education reported an average of 2.62 injuries per person, compared to 4.41 in the group without education. Yoon and Choi3) emphasized the need for infection prevention education for dental hygienists, and several of dental rovided infection prevention education to students. Park and Choi20) reported a strong correlation between infection-control education and awareness and practice among clinical dental hygienists, highlighting the importance of mandatory infection prevention education and the need for continuous education to maintain skills and knowledge. In this study, overall infection-control scores was higher among those with education, particularly in areas such as “reporting to a superior” and “visiting the infection control office or emergency room” after an accident. However, the scores were lower than those for infection-control practices related to wearing protective equipment and emergency treatments. Previous studies have shown that students hesitate to report incidents because of fear of blame21), fear of specific tests or disciplinary actions, concerns about confidentiality, and not knowing where to report22). In emergency situations, quick and accurate management is crucial, and reporting procedures23,24) should be made more convenient to improve knowledge and awareness of post-exposure guidelines25). Therefore, in addition to prevention, guidelines or practical instructions on needlestick injury prevention that reduce reporting barriers should be provided. Furthermore, encouraging reporting during injection practices and creating a non-blaming environment are necessary. Considering the high frequency of needlestick injuries and low participation in education, dental clinics should mandate regular infection prevention education and training to strengthen safety protocols and accident response procedures. To reduce accidents during cleaning and disposal of instruments, detailed procedures and safety guidelines should be established, and practical simulations should be emphasized during education. Hospitals that provide good education should continue to strengthen their programs and regularly assess practitioners’ knowledge to ensure that they follow the updated infection-control guidelines. Additionally, awareness of reporting procedures and follow-up actions after accidents should be enhanced through educational programs. In this study, accidents frequently occurred during processes such as “cleaning or washing instruments” and “preparing or disposing of anesthesia.” The frequency of injuries was the highest during “surgical procedures” (7.72 injuries per person) and “waste management” (7.26 injuries per person). The most common instruments causing injuries were “scalers, probes, or curettes” and “anesthesia syringes.” Other tools like “scalpels and suture needles” (6.43 injuries) and “powered instruments” (6.21 injuries) also showed high injury rates. Kim et al.26) reported that 59.8% of injuries occurred during post-procedure instrument cleaning, which is similar to the findings in this study. In a study involving Australian dental students and staff, local anesthesia procedures were the most common causes of injuries25), with needles being the most frequently involved instrument. Another study by Choi and Bae27) reported that probes were the most common cause of injuries, followed by needles, which aligns with the findings in this study that injuries often occur during instrument cleaning and organization. Noh8) reported that dental syringes were the most common cause of needlestick injuries, particularly during infiltration anesthesia, and the results differed between dentists and dental hygienists. Nam et al.28) reported that 87.5% of dental hygienists experienced injuries, with probes being the most commonly used instrument (75%). Injuries were most frequently reported on the “hands,” followed by the “buttocks or feet” (7.67 injuries per person) and “thighs or legs” (6.90 injuries per person). Kim et al.26) reported that injuries occurred in the hands, legs, feet, and arms, with needles and sharp instruments being the most common causes. Another study on healthcare workers showed that injuries often occur because of sharp instruments in inappropriate locations during or after disposal. Considering the frequent occurrence of needlestick injuries from instruments such as scalers, probes, curettes, and anesthesia syringes, clarifying the precautions to be taken during the use and disposal of these instruments is essential. Additionally, considering that injuries often occur on the hands and legs, particularly during instrument cleaning and disposal, reinforcing safety protocols for these processes and providing detailed education on preventive measures are necessary.

2.Limitations and scope for further studies

Further research is recommended to create safer dental clinical environments. Because infection prevention education influences the frequency of needlestick and sharp-instrument injuries, educational content should reflect the latest infection-control guidelines and include practical training based on real-life scenarios. Preventive guidelines tailored to specific departments and instruments should be established, and specific response measures should be actively implemented. This will help reduce the fear of reporting incidents, and reporting procedures should be emphasized during training to ensure appropriate responses after accidents.

Future studies should analyze the characteristics of needlestick injuries that occur in various dental environments and with different instruments to develop customized preventive measures. It is important to note that the use of convenience sampling in this study limits its generalizability to all dental hygienists. Additionally, recalling needlestick injuries over the past year may introduce bias, and caution is needed when interpreting survey items with multiple responses.

We hope that the findings in this study will contribute to creating a safer working environment in dental clinics, and we performed an evaluation of all methods used previously. Strategies to prevent needlestick injuries. Our findings will serve as a reference for future research and practice.

Acknowledgements

None.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the institutional review board of Hanseo University (IRB No. HS23-08-01).

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Yeon-Soon Park and Sung-Suk Bae. Data acquisition: Yeon-Soon Park. Formal analysis: Jin-Soo Kim. Supervision: Kyoung-Ok Yun. Writing-original draft: Yeon-Soon Park and Sung-Suk Bae. Writing-review & editing: Yeon-Soon Park and Jeong-Hyun Lee.

Funding

None.

Data availability

Raw data is provided at the request of the corresponding author for reasonable reason.

References
  1. Kim YS: Study on the level of awareness of and practice of infection prevention by dental hygienists in dental clinics. J Korean Soc Oral Health Sci 7: 8-17, 2019.
    https://doi.org/10.33615/jkohs.2019.7.1.8.
    CrossRef
  2. Ryu JG, Choi-Kwon S: Predictors of blood and body fluid exposure and mediating effects of infection prevention behavior in shift-working nurses: application of analysis method for zero-inflated count data. J Korean Acad Nurs 50: 658-670, 2020.
    https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.20025.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Yoon MS, Choi MS: The analysis of the prevention against virus infection in dental hygienist at medical treatment. J Dent Hyg Sci 7: 101-106, 2007.
  4. Leggat PA, Smith DR: Prevalence of percutaneous exposure incidents amongst dentists in Queensland. Aust Dent J 51: 158-161, 2006.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00420.x.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Michaels D, Wagner GR: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and worker safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA 324: 1389-1390, 2020.
    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.16343.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Availability of Work-Related Lung Disease Surveillance Report, 1999. JAMA 283: 1955, 2000.
    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.1955-jwr0419-3-1.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Lee JH: A survey of cognition on infection control of the clients in dental hospital. J Korean Soc Dent Hyg 13: 249-260, 2013.
    https://doi.org/10.13065/jksdh.2013.13.2.249.
    CrossRef
  8. Noh H: In dental hospital the actual condition of sharps related injuries and the associating factor. Unpublished master's thesis, Yonsei University, Seoul, 2007.
  9. Jeon JM: Actual state of dental hygienist's needlestick injuries and preventive measures. Unpublished master's thesis, Namseoul University, Cheonan, 2015.
  10. Bae SS, Lee MS: Study on elements for effective infection control at dental hospitals. J Korean Soc Dent Hyg 11: 557-569, 2011.
  11. Suk SH: Improvement plans of accreditation program for healthcare organizations in Korea. Health Soc Welf Rev 202: 39-47, 2013.
  12. Ministry of Health and Welfare: Dental infection control standard policy & precedure. Retrieved August 13, 2024, from https://www.mohw.go.kr/board.es?mid=a10411010100&bid=0019&tag=&act=view&list_no=355159.(2020, June 26).
  13. Choi DR, Kim SH: The study on organization, infection controller, patient infection control of dental clinic in certain areas. J Dent Hyg Sci 15: 399-406, 2015.
    https://doi.org/10.17135/jdhs.2015.15.4.399.
    CrossRef
  14. Korean Society for Healthcare-associated Infection Control: Infection control and prevention in healthcare facilities. 5th ed. HANMI Medical Publishing, Seoul, pp.897-906, 2017.
  15. Kim EY, Moon K: Prevalence rate and risk factors for needlestick and sharps injuries in education practicum among nursing students. J Health Info Stat 44: 262-270, 2019.
    https://doi.org/10.21032/jhis.2019.44.3.262.
    CrossRef
  16. Kim HR, Park MR, Seong HJ: Perception and implementation for dental infection control in Busan, KyungNam areas. Korean Acad Den Hyg 14: 11-21, 2012.
  17. Jeong HJ, Lee JH: Impact factor of cognition and practice of infection control in the dental hygienists. J Korean Soc Dent Hyg 15: 363-369, 2015.
    https://doi.org/10.13065/jksdh.2015.15.03.363.
    CrossRef
  18. Askarian M, Malekmakan L: The prevalence of needle stick injuries in medical, dental, nursing and midwifery students at the university teaching hospitals of Shiraz, Iran. Indian J Med Sci 60: 227-232, 2006.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Kim SY, Lee JR, Han OS: A study on the practice for infection prevention of dental clinic worker. Korean Soc Den Hyg Sci 14: 397-404, 2014.
    https://doi.org/10.17135/jdhs.2014.14.3.397.
    CrossRef
  20. Park KH, Choi HJ: Correlations of education experience, awareness and practice of infection control during the prosthodontic treatment in clinical dental hygienists. J Korean Soc Dent Hyg 17: 681-691, 2017.
    https://doi.org/10.13065/jksdh.2017.17.04.681.
    CrossRef
  21. Cheung K, Ho SC, Ching SS, Chang KK: Analysis of needlestick injuries among nursing students in Hong Kong. Accid Anal Prev 42: 1744-1750, 2010.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.015.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Zungu LI, Sengane ML, Setswe KG: Knowledge and experiences of needle prick injuries (NPI) among nursing students at a university in Gauteng, South Africa. S Afr Fam Pract 50: 48-48c, 2008.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/20786204.2008.10873762.
    CrossRef
  23. Lee JY, Park JS: Predictors associated with occurrence of needlestick injuries in clinical practicum among nursing students. J Korean Acad Fundam Nurs 24: 84-94, 2017.
    https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2017.24.1.84.
    CrossRef
  24. Choi MJ, Chaung SK, Park JH, Chang SJ, Sohng KY: Exposure to needlestick and sharp injuries, anxiety during injection practice and experience of injecting human beings in fundamental injection practice. J Korean Acad Fundam Nurs 25: 231-239, 2018.
    https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2018.25.4.231.
    CrossRef
  25. Ghasemzadeh I, Kazerooni M, Davoodian P, Hamedi Y, Sadeghi P: Sharp injuries among medical students. Glob J Health Sci 7: 320-325, 2015.
    https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v7n5p320.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  26. Kim WJ, Jeong BY, Park J: A study on the characteristics of occupational accidents in health care workers: a systematic literature reveiw. J Ergon Soc Korea 41: 327-346, 2022.
    https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2022.41.5.327.
    CrossRef
  27. Choi MH, Bae HS: A study on the status of injuries experience and prevention in dental office. J Dent Hyg Sci 15: 845-850, 2015.
    https://doi.org/10.17135/jdhs.2015.15.6.845.
    CrossRef
  28. Nam YS, Yoo JS, Park MS: A study on actual conditions for prevention of infections by dental hygienists. J Dent Hyg Sci 7: 1-7, 2007.


September 2024, 24 (3)
Full Text(PDF) Free

Social Network Service

Cited By Articles
  • CrossRef (0)
  • Download (50)

Author ORCID Information