Apollo Safer Sharps Products

The Benefits of Safer Sharps in the UK Medical Industry

​

Emphasising Safety Lancets and Safety Insulin Pen Needles

​

In the UK healthcare sector, the use of sharps—such as needles and lancets—is integral to patient care. However, these instruments pose significant risks if not designed with safety in mind. The adoption of safer sharps technologies, particularly safety lancets and safety insulin pen needles, has been instrumental in reducing needlestick injuries, enhancing patient compliance, and improving overall clinical outcomes.

​

1. Reduction in Needlestick Injuries

​

Needlestick injuries (NSIs) are a notable occupational hazard in healthcare settings. In the UK, it is estimated that approximately 100,000 needlestick injuries occur annually within the healthcare sector, accounting for around 17% of all workplace accidents in the NHS. These injuries can lead to exposure to bloodborne viruses such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV, posing serious health risks to healthcare workers.

​

• Safety Lancets: These devices are designed with automatic, retractable needles that eliminate the risk of reuse and minimize exposure to the needle after use. This single-use design significantly reduces the chances of accidental pricks to healthcare workers and patients alike.

• Safety Insulin Pen Needles: Modern safety insulin pen needles often feature built-in safety shields or auto-retract functions that cover the needle immediately after use, providing a protective barrier between the needle and the user.

​

The introduction of safety-engineered devices has been shown to reduce needlestick injuries by over 80% in clinical settings.

​

2. Compliance with UK Regulations

​

The UK has implemented specific regulations to mitigate the risks associated with sharps injuries:

​

• Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013: These regulations require employers in the healthcare sector to ensure the safe use and disposal of sharps. This includes the use of safety-engineered devices where reasonably practicable, providing appropriate training to staff, and investigating incidents to prevent recurrence.

• Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR): Under RIDDOR, employers must report work-related injuries, including those caused by sharps, to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Despite these regulations, a study revealed that 33% of NHS trusts have not properly implemented safer sharps initiatives, highlighting the need for improved compliance and enforcement.

​

3. Improved Infection Control

​

Safety lancets and safety insulin pen needles contribute to better infection control by:

​

• Preventing cross-contamination due to their single-use design.

• Reducing the risk of exposure to bloodborne viruses, which can be transmitted through needlestick injuries.

​

These improvements support healthcare policies aimed at minimizing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).

​

4. Enhanced Patient Comfort and Compliance

​

Comfort is a key factor in ensuring patient adherence, especially for individuals who require frequent self-testing or injections, such as those with diabetes.

​

• Safety Lancets: Offer precise depth control, allowing for more comfortable blood sampling with minimal pain.

• Safety Insulin Pen Needles: Available in ultra-fine gauges and shorter lengths, reducing injection pain and anxiety. Many are also coated to glide smoothly through the skin.

​

Patients are more likely to adhere to testing and treatment regimens when procedures are perceived as quick, safe, and nearly painless.

​

5. Cost-Efficiency and Time Savings

​

While safer sharps devices may have a slightly higher unit cost, they can lead to significant long-term savings:

​

• Cost of Needlestick Injuries: The financial burden of needlestick injuries on the NHS is substantial. It is estimated that needlestick injuries cost each NHS trust approximately £500,000 annually, considering expenses related to testing, treatment, and compensation claims.

• Cost of Safety Devices: The estimated cost of introducing safer devices to prevent needlestick injuries is around £136,000 per NHS trust per year, which is significantly lower than the cost associated with managing needlestick injuries.

​

Investing in safer sharps technologies can result in overall cost savings and improved resource allocation.

​

6. Passive vs. Active Activation of Safety Needle Devices

​

A key consideration in evaluating safety sharps is how the safety mechanism is activated. There are two main types:

​

• Passive Activation: The safety feature is automatically triggered as part of the device's normal use, without requiring any additional action by the user.

  • Example: A safety insulin pen needle that retracts automatically after injection.

  • Benefits: Reduces human error; no additional training or effort required. This is especially useful in high-pressure or high-volume environments like emergency departments or community care.

• Active Activation: The safety feature must be manually engaged by the user after use (e.g., by sliding a shield over the needle or pressing a button).

  • Example: Some safety lancets or needle guards that must be clicked or moved into place.

  • Benefits: May provide more control or feedback to the user, but heavily depends on proper training and consistent practice.

​

Passive safety devices are generally preferred in clinical environments because they reduce reliance on user compliance and lower the risk of needlestick injuries due to oversight or haste.

​

Conclusion

​

The adoption of safer sharps technologies—especially safety lancets and safety insulin pen needles—is crucial to improving safety, compliance, and cost efficiency in the UK healthcare system. As regulations continue to enforce the use of safety-engineered devices, understanding the mechanics of passive versus active activation will further support informed purchasing decisions and effective implementation. Continued investment in these technologies is essential for safeguarding both healthcare workers and patients alike.