Full Press Release Details
Starting conversations about needlestick safety without blame or assumptions
Needlestick injuries continue to affect healthcare workers across the United States, even after decades of regulation and the widespread adoption of safety-engineered devices. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that approximately 385,000 needlestick and other sharps injuries occur each year among hospital-based healthcare personnel. Nurses are among the groups most frequently affected.¹
Over time, the frequency of these injuries, combined with the pace and pressure of clinical work, has contributed to a culture where exposures are often treated as inevitable. Something you manage quietly, document if required, and then move past.
But research shows that this silence has consequences.
Why These Conversations Matter
Multiple studies have found that a substantial portion of needlestick injuries go unreported , which limits opportunities to understand patterns, improve systems, and reduce future risk.² ³ Underreporting has been linked to time constraints, perceived low risk, fear of stigma, and the belief that injuries are simply part of the job.
When injuries are not discussed, they are rarely questioned. And when they are not questioned, unsafe conditions tend to persist.
Talking about prevention is not about assigning blame or correcting individual behavior. It is about acknowledging what is happening and creating space to examine the systems, tools, and workflows that shape everyday risk.
Why Speaking Up Can Feel Difficult
Research suggests that healthcare workers often hesitate to raise safety concerns when they fear being seen as disruptive, overly cautious, or critical of established practices.⁴ In fast-paced clinical settings, silence can feel safer than starting a difficult conversation.
That hesitation is understandable and common.
Even when the immediate clinical risk is addressed, the emotional impact of an exposure can linger. Fear, frustration, or uncertainty often go unspoken, reinforcing the sense that these injuries are something to endure rather than examine.
Reframing the Goal of Prevention Conversations
Effective safety conversations do not focus on what an individual should have done. They focus on patterns, design, and systems .
The Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act reflected this approach by requiring healthcare facilities to:
• Consider safer device alternatives
• Involve frontline healthcare workers in device selection
• Maintain sharps injury logs to identify trends⁵
These requirements point to an important reality. Risk is often built into systems and tools, not individual choices.
Conversation is often the first step in recognizing where those systems fall short.
Starting From Experience, Not Accusation
Many nurses find it easier to speak up when conversations begin with shared experience rather than conclusions.
That might mean:
• Describing a near-miss
• Noting a recurring issue during busy shifts
• Talking about a moment that felt unnecessarily risky
Statements rooted in observation tend to keep discussions collaborative:
“I’ve noticed this happens frequently during high-volume periods.” “I wasn’t injured, but it didn’t feel safe.” “I’m curious if others have experienced this too.”
These approaches open dialogue without assigning fault.
Shifting the Focus From Individuals to Systems
Research has shown that device design plays a meaningful role in needlestick risk , particularly when safety mechanisms require additional manual steps or place hands close to contaminated sharps.⁶ ⁷
Other contributing factors can include:
• Workflow pressure
• Disposal design
• Inconsistent device performance
• Environmental constraints
Discussing prevention means looking at these system-level factors rather than scrutinizing individual technique.
Where Conversations Actually Happen
There is no single right place to talk about prevention. These discussions happen in many settings:
• Informal conversations between colleagues
• Team huddles or safety meetings
• One-on-one discussions with leadership
• Conversations prompted by shared stories
What matters most is that these conversations happen at all.
Even small moments of honesty can begin to shift what has quietly been accepted for years.
Looking Toward Safer Solutions
Not all safety-engineered devices perform equally when it comes to reducing needlestick injuries.
Surveillance data from licensed hospitals in Massachusetts reported 950 needlestick injuries involving hypodermic syringes and needles in 2020 , showing that injuries continue to occur even in regulated healthcare environments.⁸
Research has demonstrated meaningful differences in injury rates based on device design. In one facility-based trial comparing active safety devices, such as syringes with sliding shields, with passive retractable safety-engineered syringes, the occurrence of subcutaneous needlestick injuries decreased by nearly 95% during the trial period .⁹
These findings reinforce an important point. Safety is influenced not only by training or compliance, but by the design of the tools themselves.
At Retractable Technologies, we believe safety should be built into the device rather than dependent on perfect conditions or workarounds. VanishPoint safety syringes use automated retraction technology designed to activate passively, keep hands behind the needle, and maintain containment through disposal.
Facilities evaluate devices based on their own protocols, user feedback, and safety data. VanishPoint represents one approach to addressing a problem that has too often been accepted as unavoidable.
Supporting Conversations Beyond the Bedside
For nurses who want to continue the conversation at an organizational level, we have prepared an optional, customizable email that references regulatory requirements, frontline input, and the importance of evaluating device performance rather than relying on device labels alone.
Using it is entirely your choice. Sharing your experience, publicly or privately, is already a meaningful step.
Moving Forward Together
Needlestick injuries persist not because nurses do not care about safety, but because risk has been normalized, underreported, and too often accepted.
Talking about prevention is one way nurses support one another. Not by taking on blame, but by refusing to stay silent.
Every conversation helps challenge what has been treated as inevitable and helps move the culture forward.
Additional Resources
Needlestick Support & Resources A curated collection of external references, research, and support related to needlestick injuries.
Understanding Needlestick Injuries General information about needlestick injuries, reporting considerations, and why they matter.
StikTalk: Read Nurse Stories Real experiences shared by nurses across healthcare settings.
References
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sharps Safety Program Resources. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/sharps-safety/index.html
• Yun J, Umemoto K, Wang W, Vyas D. National Survey of Sharps Injuries Incidence Amongst Healthcare Workers in the United States. International Journal of General Medicine. 2023;16:1193–1204. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S404418
• Bouya S, Balouchi A, Rafiemanesh H, et al. Global Prevalence and Device-Related Causes of Needle Stick Injuries among Health Care Workers. Annals of Global Health. 2020;86(1):35. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2698
• Chambers A, Mustard C, Holness D, Nichol K, Breslin F. Barriers to the Adoption of Safety-Engineered Needles Following a Regulatory Standard. Healthcare Policy. 2015;11(1):90–101.
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/needlestick
• Mohamud RYH, Mohamed NA, Doğan A, et al. Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Workers at a Tertiary Care Hospital. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy. 2023;16:2281–2289. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S434315
• Bouya S, et al. Device-Related Causes of Needle Stick Injuries. Annals of Global Health. 2020;86(1):35.
• Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers in Massachusetts: Findings from the Massachusetts Sharps Injury Surveillance System, 2020. https://www.mass.gov/doc/sharps-injuries-among-hospital-workers-in-massachusetts-2020/download
• Goris S, et al. Reducing Needlestick Injuries from Active Safety Devices: A Passive Safety-Engineered Device Trial. Association of Occupational Health Professionals in Healthcare. Spring 2014. https://d2ghdaxqb194v2.cloudfront.net/577/165816.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sharps Safety Program Resources. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/sharps-safety/index.html
Yun J, Umemoto K, Wang W, Vyas D. National Survey of Sharps Injuries Incidence Amongst Healthcare Workers in the United States. International Journal of General Medicine. 2023;16:1193–1204. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S404418
Bouya S, Balouchi A, Rafiemanesh H, et al. Global Prevalence and Device-Related Causes of Needle Stick Injuries among Health Care Workers. Annals of Global Health. 2020;86(1):35. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2698
Chambers A, Mustard C, Holness D, Nichol K, Breslin F. Barriers to the Adoption of Safety-Engineered Needles Following a Regulatory Standard. Healthcare Policy. 2015;11(1):90–101.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/needlestick
Mohamud RYH, Mohamed NA, Doğan A, et al. Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Workers at a Tertiary Care Hospital. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy. 2023;16:2281–2289. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S434315
Bouya S, et al. Device-Related Causes of Needle Stick Injuries. Annals of Global Health. 2020;86(1):35.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Sharps Injuries among Hospital Workers in Massachusetts: Findings from the Massachusetts Sharps Injury Surveillance System, 2020. https://www.mass.gov/doc/sharps-injuries-among-hospital-workers-in-massachusetts-2020/download
Goris S, et al. Reducing Needlestick Injuries from Active Safety Devices: A Passive Safety-Engineered Device Trial. Association of Occupational Health Professionals in Healthcare. Spring 2014. https://d2ghdaxqb194v2.cloudfront.net/577/165816.pdf