Needle Stick Injuries among Health Care Workers in AL-Madinah AL-Munawara Governmental Hospitals in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Needle stick injuries are a dangerous occupational hazard that threatens health care workers with serious consequences in many cases. Because of inadequate reporting of these incidents, the true magnitude of the problem is unknown. The study’s aim was to investigate the epidemiology of needle stick injuries (NSIs) among health care workers in Al Madinah Al Munawara, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A representative sample of health care workers (n=268) were randomly selected from emergency departments of three general hospitals in Al Madinah Al Munawara for a cross-sectional study, and 219 responded to a predesigned questionnaire reflecting exposure to NSI, reporting, post-exposure reactions, and knowledge about NSIs. RESULTS: Almost one third of the participating medical professionals 70 (32%) had been exposed to stick injury during work. One half of the needles (52.9%) were blood stained. Nurses are significantly more likely to have stick injury (38.6%) followed by physicians (30.4%) if compared to laboratory technicians (13.9%) at the p-value of less than 0.05. The main purposes during injuries were drawing blood sample 33 (47.1%), injection 31 (44.3%) and suturing 23 (32.9%). Almost all injured personnel (97.1%) cleaned the injury site immediately and thoroughly. Out of the injured personnel, 50 (71.4%) reported the incident to authorities. A significantly higher proportion of physicians (91.3%) achieved above average score if compared to both lab technicians (72.2%) and nurses (76.3%) at the p-value of less than 0.05. CONCLUSION: Occupational needle stick injuries are fairly common among health care workers at Al Madinah Al Munawara’s governmental hospitals. In hospitals, deliberate efforts should be made to ensure adherence to safety guidelines governing needle stick injuries.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".