Enhanced Analysis and Development of Technical Features, Performance, and Occupational Safety in Syringe Needle Destroyers for Advancing Medical Standards
Main Article Content
Abstract
Effective management of syringe needle waste is crucial for environmental protection, occupational safety, and healthcare efficiency. Although syringe needle destroyers are widely adopted, existing research insufficiently addresses device reliability, user satisfaction, and practical operational challenges. Specifically, previous studies have overlooked persistent issues such as overheating, inefficient needle insertion mechanisms, and inadequate ergonomic and safety features. This study aims to fill these critical gaps by assessing the overall suitability of syringe needle destroyers from healthcare workers' perspectives in clinical environments across Bangkok. A structured questionnaire employing a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) evaluated three primary dimensions: technical attributes, operational performance, and safety/usability. Data were collected from 400 healthcare professionals, including nurses, physicians, medical technicians, and waste management staff, each with at least six months of experience using these devices.
Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that technical attributes, notably robust construction and efficient needle destruction mechanisms, significantly improved overall device suitability (β₁ = 0.1450, p < 0.0001). However, operational performance and safety/usability presented slightly negative influences (β₂ = –0.0251, p = 0.0797; β₃ = –0.0113, p = 0.4186), reflecting ongoing minor issues adversely impacting user satisfaction. The findings highlight the critical importance of superior technical design and underline the need for targeted enhancements in thermal management, ergonomics, and safety features. This research thus addresses existing academic gaps, providing a foundation for future improvements in syringe needle destroyer technology to meet modern healthcare standards.
Article Details
References
Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287–1294. doi:10.2307/1911963
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Cooke, C. E., & Stephens, J. M. (2017). Clinical, economic, and humanistic burden of needlestick injuries in healthcare workers. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 10, 225–235. doi:10.2147/MDER.S140846
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
Firdaus, A., Ferdana, N., Mujakar, S., Satrio, H., & Zulhamidi. (2024). Design and development of syringe needle destroyer using melting method. EMITOR: Jurnal Teknik Elektro, 1(2), 41–52. doi:10.23917/emitor.v24i3.4494
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499–510. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7
Higginson, R. J., & Parry, A. (2013). Needlestick injuries and safety syringes: A review of the literature. British Journal of Nursing, 22(Suppl. 5), S4–S8. doi:10.12968/bjon.2013.22.Sup5.S4
Jahangiri, M., Rostamabadi, A., Hoboubi, N., Tadayon, N., & Soleimani, A. (2016). Needlestick injuries and their related safety measures among nurses in a university hospital, Shiraz, Iran. Safety and Health at Work, 7(1), 72–77. doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2015.07.006
Kim, S. M., Taerim, K., Lee, J. H., Cho, S. Y., & Cha, W. C. (2022). Effect of the automatic needle destroyer on healthcare providers’ work in an emergency department: A mixed-methods study. Healthcare Informatics Research, 28(2), 123–131. doi:10.4258/hir.2022.28.2.123
Kim, Y., Oh, K., Kim, N., & Yun, J. (2019). Development of a safe syringe disposal system moving towards automated syringe data collection. Healthcare Informatics Research, 25(1), 47–50. doi:10.4258/hir.2019.25.1.47
Laowha, C., Tashoo, K., Boonsaner, N., Premchaisawatt, S., Juntahan, N., & Pranamko, T. (2023). Semi-automatic syringe removal machine to shorten the time. Kalasin University Journal of Science Technology and Innovation, 1(2), 41–52. doi:10.14456/ksti.2022.4
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55. Retrieved from https://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/Likert_1932.pdf
MathWorks, Inc. (2020). MATLAB (Version R2020a) [Computer software]. Natick, MA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.mathworks.com/
O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(8), 573–577. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010
World Health Organization. (2016). Safe injection and related procedural practices (updated guide). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/b/31378
World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053