INTRODUCTION:

Needlestick injuries (NSIs) as defined by the United States National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health are injuries caused by needles such as hypodermic needles, blood collection needles, intravenous (IV) stylets, and needles used to connect parts of IV delivery systems¹. NSIs are common and to an extent inevitable in health-care workers (HCWs) during execution of their patient care services. Percutaneous exposure occurs as a result of a break in the skin caused by a needle or sharps contaminated with blood or body fluids. Mucocutaneous exposure occurs when body fluids come into contact with open wounds, nonintact skin such as found in eczema, or mucous membranes such as the mouth and eyes². HCWs are also exposed to droplets or splashes of blood, saliva, and urine. Percutaneous injury and splashes of fluids have been recognized as a source of exposure to blood-borne pathogens such as hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) for HCWs and responsible for a significant proportion of HBV, HCV, and HIV infections in this group.^3,4

NEED OF THE STUDY:

Needle stick injuries (NSIs) remain one of the most common occupational hazards among healthcare workers (HCWs), exposing them to potentially life-threatening infections such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and HIV. The risk is exacerbated in hospital settings with high patient turnover and inadequate infection control practices. Understanding the awareness level among HCWs is essential for designing effective interventions to prevent such injuries.⁵

RESEARCH STATEMENT:

A Study to assess the awareness regarding needle stick injuries among health care workers in a selected hospital Kottayam.

OBJECTIVES:

· To assess the awareness regarding needle stick injuries among health care workers.

· To find out the association between awareness and related demographic variables.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION:

Needle stick injury:

Needle stick injury refers to an injury caused by a used needle or sharp object that accidently punctured the skin and may expose the workers to blood borne pathogens.

Awareness:

Awareness refers to the level of knowledge and understanding regarding needle stick injury, their risk and preventive measures.

Health care workers:

Health care workers refers to medical personnel involved in patient care including nurses, lab technicians and class IV workers.

Assumption:

There is a significant relationship between the level of awareness and occurrence of needle stick injury among health care workers.

Hypothesis:

H0: There is no significant association between awareness regarding needle stick injuries and selected demographic variables.

H1: There is a significant association between awareness regarding needle stick injuries and selected demographic variables.

Delimitation:

· The study will be limited to the selected health care institution.

· Only health care workers directly involved in patient care will be included.

· The study will not cover post exposure treatment or psychological impact.

· Data Collection is restricted to a specific period, which may not accurate for seasonal or situational variations

Project Outcome:

· It is expected that the study will reveals gap in knowledge and safety precaution.

· Provided data to support the implementation of more effective training programmes.

· Recommend strategies that can be adopted by the health care institution to reduce needle stick injury.

· It emphasises the importance of post exposure reporting and timely medical interventions, which are often overlooked.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

A descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in a tertiary care hospital in South India 2024 to find out the level of awareness regarding needle stick injuries on a daily basis. 400 Healthcare workers (doctor technician and housekeeping staff) with 1 year of experience were randomly selected. Results out of 400 respondents, 89% had good awareness, 4% had a misbelieve in recapping needles 75% is aware of correct vaccination doses.

METHODOLOGY:

Research Design:

Research design is an overall plan for obtaining answers to the research question for testing the research hypothesis. It is a blueprint for conducting the study that maximizes control over factors that could interfere with the validity of findings.

Descriptive non-experimental research design is selected for the study

Settings:

Little Lourdes Mission Hospital, Kidangoor.

Study Population:

In this study population, healthcare workers including nursing staff, lab technicians and class IV workers in Little Lourdes Mission Hospital Kidangoor.

Sample and Sample Size:

Sample refers to the small group of individuals chosen from a population for participation in the study.

In this study, a sample includes 60 health care workers. 40 samples from nurses, 10 samples from lab technicians, 10 samples from class IV workers in Little Lourdes Mission Hospital, Kidangoor and who fulfill their inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Sampling Technique:

The sampling technique selected current study was Convenient sampling technique.

Criteria for Sample Selection:

Inclusion criteria:

It includes:

· Health care workers who provided direct care to the patient

· Currently working in LLM Hospital

· At least 6 months of experience in LLM hospital and willing to participate and currently available at the time of data collection

Exclusion criteria:

It Includes:

· Students and trainees

· HCW (Health Care Workers) those who refuse to participate.

Method of Data Collection:

Data collection is the process of gathering information or facts to understand, analyze, or answer a research question or solve a problem.

Instruments:

A well-planned structured questionnaire prepared by researcher as the research tool

Tool 1 –its is divided into PART A & B

Part A: Demographic variables

The demographic variables were age, gender, years of experience, educational qualification, and previous exposure to training programmes.

Part B: Questionnaire

The main variables of the study are knowledge and prevention of needle stick injury. The questionnaire consists of 25 multiple choice questions regarding the causes, management, physiological effects, prevention, and treatment.

A well-structured questionnaire is developed from the environment regarding needle stick injuries. The questionnaire includes 25 multiple choice questions. Each question had 4 options and 1 mark was awarded for each correct answer.

SCORE KEY

Execellent	23-25
Good	18- 22
Average	13-17
Poor	Less than 13

TOOL A:

Demographic Variables

Table 1: Chi square value computed between awareness and age

N=60

Variables	Excellent	Good	X²	df	Decision
Age (years)	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	2.039	3	Donot reject Ho
21-30	5(8.33%)	1(1.67%)
31-40	17(28.33%)	11(18.33%)
41-50	10(16.67%)	7(11.67%)
51-60	7(11.6%)	1(1.67%)
61-70	0	1(1.67%)

Table value : 9.84

Table 2: Chi square value computed between awareness and gender

N=60

Variables	Excellent	Good	X^2	df	Decision
Gender	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	0.587	1	Donot reject Ho
Female	38(63.33%)	21(35%)
Male	1(1.67%)	0

Table value: 3.84

Table 3: Chi square value computed between awareness and education level

N=60

Variables	Excellent	Good	X^2	df	Decision
Education level	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	9.453	2	Ho is rejected
Higher secondary	4(6.67%)	7(11.67%)
Diploma	24(40%)	11(18.33%)
Bachelors’ degree	10(16.67%)	3(5%)
Masters’ degree	1(1.67%)	0

Table value: 5.99

Table 4: Chi square value computed Between awareness and profession

N=60

Variables	Execellent	Good	X^2	df	Decision
Profession	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	6.475	2	Ho is rejected
Nurse	29 (48.33%)	11 (18.33%)
Lab technician	7 (11.67%)	3 (5%)
House keeping staff	3(5%)	7(11.67%)

Table value : 5.99

The datas presented in the above tables explained that health care workers awareness regarding needle stick injury and their demographic variables are independent at the level of 0.05. Here the research hypothesis is rejected in the variables such as age, gender, total year of experience, total year of experience in llm, needle stick injury experienced. As the calculated value is lower than the table value.

TOOL B:

Questionnaire:

Score key:

Analysis and interpretation of data:

Execellent	23-25	Above 90
Good	18- 22	70- 89
Average	13-17	50- 69
Poor	Less than 13	Below 50

Distribution of Demographic Variables of Healthcare Workers:

Frequency and percentage distribution of health care workers according to demographic variables.

S. No

Demographic variables

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%)

Age

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

46.67

28.33

13.33

1.67

Gender

Female

Male

98.3

1.67

Education

Higher secondary or less

Diploma

Bachelors’ degree

Master degree or above

18.33

58.33

21.67

1.67

Profession

Nurse

Lab technician

House keeping staff

66.67

16.67

16.66

Total Year of Experience

Less than 1 year

1-5 years

6-10 years

More than 10 years

11.67

16.67

21.66

Total Year of Experience in LLM

Less than 1year

1-5 years

6-10 years

More than 10 years

36.67

13.33

Needle Stick Injury Experienced

None

Once

2-3 times

More than 3 times

3.33

1.675

100

From the above table, showed that among the 60 samples 10% (6) of the sample belong to age group 21 to 30 years, 46.67% (28) of the sample where between age group 31 to 40 years, 28.33% (17) of the sample where between age group 41 to 50 years, 13.33% (8) of the sample where between 51-60yrs, 1.67% (1) of the sample were between age group 61-70%. Gender showed that among the 60 samples, 98.3% (59) are females and 1.69% (1) are males. In education, showed that from the 60 samples, 18.33% (11), had higher secondary or less 58.33% (35) had diploma, 21.67% (13) had bachelors degree and 1.67% (1) had master degree. In profession, from the 60 samples, 66.67% (40) were nurses, 16.67% (10) were lab technician and 16.66% (10) were House keeping staffs. On the basis of total year of experience from the 60 samples, 11.67% (7) had experience less than one year, 16.67% (10) had 1-5 years of experience, 21.66% (13) had 6-10 years of experience, 50% (30) had more than 10 years of experience. Its showed that from the 60 samples 20% (12) had experience less than one year in LLM, 36.67% (22) had experience less than 1-5 years in LLM, 13.33% (8) had experience less than 6 -10 years in LLM, and 30% (8) had experience more than10 years in LLM and also from the 60 samples, 90% (54) had no experience with needle stick injury, 5% (3) had one time exposure, 3.33% (2) had 2-3 exposure,1.67% (1) had more than 3 time exposure.

Relation with Awareness and Demographic Variables:

S. No	Category	Frequency	Percantage
1	Excellent	39	65
2	Good	21	35
3	Average	0	0
4	Poor	0	0

DISCUSSION:

The study focused on assessing the awareness regarding needle stick injury among health care workers.

Disscussion was carried out under the following headings:

· To assess the awareness regarding the needle stick injuries among health care workers.

· To evaluate awareness of current institutional protocol for reporting and managing needle stick injuries.

· To find out the association between awareness and related demographic variables.

RESULT:

Among 60 participants, 65% had excellent awareness and 35% had good awareness of NSIs. A significant association was found between awareness and education level (χ² = 9.453, p<0.05), and between awareness and profession (χ² = 6.475, p<0.05). Most participants (90%) had never experienced a needle stick injury.

NURSING IMPLICATIONS:

Nursing Education:

Nurses play a pivotal role in providing proper education about Needle Stick Injury, Nursing education brings changes in the occurrences of Needle Stick Injury by taking necessary precautions and safe handling of needles in emergency and routine procedures.

Nursing Administration:

Nursing administration is to organize and direct human and material resources to achieve a desired nursing outcome. Nurses as competent administrators can play an important role in providing awareness in the prevention of Needle Stick Injury. They can also conduct educational programs, and supervise health teaching of student nurses.

Nursing Practice:

As a vital part of the health team, nurses can give greater contributions in improving awareness on the prevention of Needle Stick Injuries. Nurses plan self-administered questionnaires which can be used to improve knowledge regarding Needle Stick Injuries. Among student nurses, the nursing approach through structured teaching programs was helpful to improve Needle Stick Injury prevention.

Nursing Research:

Extensive research programs should be conducted periodically in the nursing college to make improvement in its prevention. This study helps nurses research to educate nursing students to participate in adopting safety precautions to prevent further Needle Stick Injuries.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made:

· A similar study can be conducted with a large sample so that the findings can be generalized. This study can not only be done among Health care workers but also with the student nurses and other caregivers.

· A comparative study can be conducted between males and females to assess knowledge regarding Needle Stick Injuries.

Other recommendations include,

1. Educational Interventions:

· Conduct regular training sessions and workshops on NSI prevention, safe handling of sharps, and post-exposure protocols.

· Include hands-on demonstrations and real-case scenarios to improve engagement and retention.

2. Strengthen Institutional Policies:

· Develop or revise clear protocols for NSI reporting and management.

· Ensure the visibility of policies in all departments through posters, pocket guides, or mobile-based alerts.

3. Mandatory Induction Training:

· All new healthcare staff should undergo mandatory training on infection control and sharp injury prevention.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation:

· Implement periodic assessments to monitor compliance with safety protocols and awareness levels.

· Encourage a non-punitive reporting culture to ensure honest documentation of NSI incidents.

5. Targeted Awareness Programs:

· Special focus should be given to class IV workers, who may lack formal education in safety practices.

· Tailor awareness materials to the literacy and language needs of diverse staff groups.

6. Provision of Safety Devices:

· Introduce safety-engineered devices (e.g., retractable syringes, needleless systems) to minimize the risk of injury

LIMITATION OF THE STUDY:

· This study was limited to a selected hospital at Kidangoor.

· Both male and female were taken as samples.

· The time period was short.

· Awareness of knowledge was limited to a current response to a multiple-choice questionnaire.

· The individual temperament of each sample may have affected the study.

CONCLUSION:

On the basis of the findings of the present study, the following conclusions were drawn. Knowledge of the nursing students regarding Needle Stick Injury was assessed. A majority of them, 39 (65%) have excellent knowledge, and 21(35%) have good knowledge. The study also revealed that there is a significant association between scores and demographic variables like education and profession.

REFERENCES:

1. Norsayani MY, Noor Hassim I. Study on incidence of needle stick injury and factors associated with this problem among medical students. J Occup Health. 2003; 45: 172–8. doi: 10.1539/joh.45.172.

2. Alonso A. Cementing sharps safety in the European Union: The importance of complying with the 2010 EU council directive on sharps injury prevention. J Nurs Care. 2014; 3:1–2.

3. Rogers B, Goodno L. Evaluation of interventions to prevent needlestick injuries in health care occupations. Am J Prev Med. 2000; 18(4 Suppl): 90–8. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00145-8.

4. Sepkowitz KA. Occupationally acquired infections in health care workers. Part I. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125: 826–34. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-125-10-199611150-00007.

5. Muralidhar, S., Singh, P. K., Jain, R. K., Malhotra, M., and Bala, M. Needle stick injuries among health care workers in a tertiary care hospital of India. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2010; 131: 405–410. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121263.

Received on 27.08.2025 Revised on 18.11.2025

Accepted on 27.01.2026 Published on 25.02.2026

Available online from February 28, 2026

A and V Pub Int. J. of Nursing and Med. Res. 2026; 5(1):9-14.

DOI: 10.52711/ijnmr.2026.03

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.

Variables	Execellent	Good	X^2	df	Decision
Total year of experience	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	1.889	2	Do not reject Ho
Less than 1 year	3(5%)	4(6.67%)
1-5 years	7(11.67%)	3(5%)
6-10 years	7(11.67%)	6(20%)
More than 10 years	22(36.66%)	8(13.33%)

Variables	Excellent	Good	X^2	df	Decisio
Total year of experience in LLM	Frequency (%)	Frequency (%)	0.311	2	Do not reject Ho
Less than 1 year	7(11.67%)	5(8.33%)
1-5 years	14(23.33%)	8(13.33%)
6-10 years	4(6.67%)	4(6.67%)
More than 10 years	14(23.33%)	4(6.67%)