A Comparison between the New and the Conventional Method for Recapping of Needles in a Hospital Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> Needle stick injury is a common and serious event despite training and education and preventive strategies. The common form of the needle stick among health care workers can be occurred while recapping of needle and it is important because of the risk of transferring infectious strains. With aim of reducing the needle stick injury we compared the results of a new recapping method as high dropping cover to a needle and then try to fix it for frequency of needle stick injury and impending to injury among a sample of nurses.</p><p><strong>METHODS &amp; MATERIAL:</strong> One hundred and fifty nurses from different hospital wards participated in the study. Both conventional method (holding syringe with needle attached in one hand, slip needle into the cap with using other hand) and the new method (high drop of cover over needle without slip with hand) were performed by<strong> </strong>each nurses (each one for 10 times) consecutively as rapidly possible under observation.</p><p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> In this study, most of the needle stick injury belonged to the conventional method compared to the new method (8.0% versus 2.9%). It was accompanied with the higher rates of impending to injury (29.3% versus 18.0%). The rate of impending to injury in the conventional method was as one time in 15.3%, two times in 10.0% and three times in 4.0%, while one, two, and three times of impending to injury occurred in 12.9%, 4.3%, and 0.7%, respectively in the new method.</p><p><strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> Described new method for recapping is superior to the conventional method leading lower needle stick injury and lower impending to injury. <strong></strong></p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".