Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Third of trusts in breach of sharps rules


A third of hospital trusts in England are failing to comply with safety regulations designed to reduce the risk of needlestick injuries to nurses and other frontline staff, according to latest research.

Analysts found 33% of trusts did not instruct staff to use safety devices “wherever possible” in their sharps policies, despite it being an explicit requirement of health and safety regulations introduced last year on the back of a European Union directive.

A report from business analysts MindMetre investigated the implementation of directive 2010/32/EU, which came into force in May 2010, and was followed by UK guidance from the Health and Safety Executive.  

“There is considerable ground yet to be covered”


Using the Freedom of Information Act, the analysts obtained details of safety policies from 159 hospital trusts.  

Their report said: “The emerging picture is one of widespread progress towards adoption and compliance, but also one which shows that there is considerable ground yet to be covered.”

It noted that most trust are “demonstrating their concern of staff safety with tangible action”. For example, 84% of trusts had revised and published their sharps policy in light of the EU directive.

However, it highlighted that this still left a “remnant” of 16% of trusts – more than one in 10 – that had no plans in place to revise their sharps policy in the light of the new regulations.

It said some had claimed their existing policies required no revision, while others had simply stated that no revision was planned.

“Given that sharps policy revisions have been deemed necessary by the majority of trusts, including the significant minority of pioneering institutions, it does not seem credible that any trust should require no policy revisions at all,” the report warned. “Scrutiny from the regulatory authorities, which is already active, will, hopefully, decide the matter.”

In addition, it found 59% of trusts instructed staff to use safety devices “wherever possible” and a further 8% did so but with the caveat that such products may not be available in some treatment categories. The remainder, however, relied on the judgment of clinical staff, it said.

The categories most often cited as having safety device use mandated were cannulation and phlebotomy. This was despite the most common devices involved in sharps injuries being syringes and hypodermic needles having the greatest potential for deep injuries.

The report stated: “There remains a proportion of trusts – around one sixth – that have not revised their sharps policies. Moreover, one third of trusts are not encouraging their staff to use safety devices ‘wherever possible’, despite this being a clear piece of guidance in the relevant regulation.”

The analysts said they would be following up the investigation later this year “to track further progress”. In addition, they are considering looking into sharps policies in the private sector and community settings, where they said “anecdotal evidence suggests that the focus is not as strong”.  

“It does not seem credible that any trust should require no policy revisions at all”


The directive’s implementation brought to a close a legislative process dating back to 2005. 

As well as safer sharps, it requires employers to prevent the recapping of needles, train staff in the correct use and disposal of sharps and provide information to them on needlestick injuries.

The directive applies to NHS, private and voluntary sector employers and staff, including contractors such as bank nurses. However, it does not cover residential care homes, prisons or schools.

Sharps injuries account for 17% of NHS staff injuries and at least 17 healthcare workers were infected with hepatitis C as a result of one between 1996 and 2009.



Readers' comments (3)

  • 1. This represents a huge expense at a time budgets are being cut. Its right that staff should be protected against injury however what if it reduces staff numbers and leads to more stress and corner cutting?
    2. Not all so called sharp safe automatically retract and therefore require an action by the user to make it safe - as did safe disposal but that hasn't worked. Some auto retract devices fail so still require vigilance in safe disposal.
    3. When blanket policies are introduced, and I know of one hospital that has done this, patients who would have been self caring with say insulin are not allowed to carry on giving their own or cannot manage the change while in hospital and are then made dependent and discharged home requiring daily or twice daily visits - then its up to the DN to support them back to independence with non sharp safe needles.
    4. I am sure some trusts don't need a policy change as they already supported the use of sharp safe. These are not new devices after all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Pathetic !

    Write all the policies you like.

    Policies will not and cannot account for those who fail for whatever reason to follow safe practice.

    It is the responsibility of ward/dept heads to ensure safe practice within the area of their responsibility.

    There can be no excuses.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So called blunt needles for drawing up drugs are riddled with problems. We use BD needles and:
    * they readily puncture skin so are not blunt
    * they are wider bore than an old white needle so allow particle to be aspirated
    * they 'core' rubber bungs endangering patients
    * they are far too expensive - and filter needles are 40p each
    * the costs may lead to cuts elsewhere

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.