IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v15y2006i10p1228-1239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The health beliefs of hospital staff and the reporting of needlestick injury

Author

Listed:
  • Nili Tabak
  • Amal Musaa Shiaabana
  • Shaul ShaSha

Abstract

Aim. The aim of this study is to examine the connection between the health beliefs of hospital staff (doctors, nurses and auxiliary staff) and their failure to report needlestick injuries. Background. Needlestick injury to hospital staff is quite frequent and can result in infections and disease, but staff frequently do not report the injury despite their awareness of the risk of blood‐borne pathogens. Methods. Five questionnaires were constructed based on three existing research tools and were tested for validity and reliability. Two hundred and forty questionnaires were distributed to eight randomly chosen departments of a single Israeli hospital. Seventy‐six percent of the questionnaires were anonymously completed and returned. Results. Nurses had the highest rate of needlestick injury, followed by auxiliary staff and doctors. Auxiliary staff showed the highest rate of compliance with the duty to report such injuries, while doctors showed the lowest. Perceived severity of contractable disease, the perceived efficacy of reporting injuries and overall motivation to maintain health were the best predictors of reporting compliance. Non‐compliers emphasized the negative aspects of reporting the injuries, primarily that it took up too much time. Conclusions. The solution to non‐compliance with the duty to report must be a targeted investment in training and education. Relevance to clinical practice. Finding the reasons for compliance and non‐compliance with the duty to report needlestick injuries will help in designing educational programmes for hospital staff and in determining a strategy for improving health behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Nili Tabak & Amal Musaa Shiaabana & Shaul ShaSha, 2006. "The health beliefs of hospital staff and the reporting of needlestick injury," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(10), pages 1228-1239, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:10:p:1228-1239
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01423.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01423.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01423.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:10:p:1228-1239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.