Of all the nurses who were interviewed, 4.3% stated that they would not take Post-Exposure Prophylaxis in cases of needlestick injuries in which the blood status of the patient is unknown, 4.3 % stated that they would take prophylaxis if advised, and 91.2% stated that they would start a course of prophylaxis.

If the test results of the patient were negative, 43.9% stated that they would not take prophylaxis and 56% stated that they would take prophylaxis, after a needlestick injury.

All the nurses interviewed who had been injured in the last 6 months reported their injury either immediately or at the end of their shifts to the occupational health manager (25%) or the infection control department (50%). The rest (25%) had reported the injury to friends and not any official person. Very few had any working knowledge of the drugs used in Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV.

The nurses that had been injured more than 6 months before reported the injury either immediately or at the end of their shifts but did not recall to whom they had reported.

Table 7 :Reporting officer

Table 8 : Years of experience

The current study aimed to address the attitude of the healthcare worker to a needlestick injury, and their likelihood to report the injury and obtain prophylaxis for the injury. Nurses are the most common sufferers of needlestick injuries [6] in the health sector due mostly to increased exposure to needles. The major factors contributing to injuries are fatigue, long working hours, recapping needles after use, and lack of proper hazard and awareness training [13].

The prevalence of needlestick injuries was found to be 9.8% for at least one injury in their career, of which 2.19% suffered injuries within the last 6 months. This is much lower than Sardesai et al ‘ s [15] observation who found a prevalence of 45% in their careers and Sharma et al (16) who found 79.5% in their career and 22.4% in the last month and more recently Kebede [7] who found a self-reported rate of 34.5% in the last year. It is possible that this difference could be due to an unwillingness of the questioned nurses to admit to injuries, or could be due to them forgetting past incidents of injury. It could also be due to differences in the ages of nurses working in the different institution, as nurses who have worked for longer periods may be exposed for a longer period to needles than younger nurses.

All the nurses interviewed who had been injured reported their injury either immediately or at the end of their shifts to the occupational health manager (25%) or the infection control department (50%). The rest (25%) had reported the injury to friends and not any official person. This is similar to studies by Konlan et al (8), in which many (69.4%) agreed on reporting the incident as early as possible and Mbaisi [9] in which 52.5% reported the incidence of percutaneous injury. Very few had any working knowledge of the drugs used in Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV according to Bamford et al [1]. It is noted in other studies that this is due to either a lack of awareness of the significance of early reporting of injuries for effective prophylaxis, or a lack of trust in the healthcare system. Very few had any working knowledge of the drugs used in Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV according to Bamford et al [1].

Studies show that around 90% of vaccinations in healthy individuals produce immunity against hepatitis B (17), and is the surest way at the moment of becoming immune. More than 90% of those questioned had been fully vaccinated, and 93.4% had been vaccinated at least once against hepatitis B. this is found to be much higher than Konlan’s report [8] which found only 44.4% had been vaccinated against hepatitis B.

Most of those questioned named HIV/AIDS (90.1%) and Hepatitis B (82.41%) as blood-borne, and about half (50.5%) named Hepatitis C as blood-borne. This is similar to Gurubacharya from Nepal who reported that 4% of nurses as being unaware that Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C were blood-borne.

According to current protocols [3], sharps containers must be no more than 3/4th full at the time of disposal, which was known by 83.43% of the nurses interviewed. 16.48% said that the sharps container must be disposed of when completely full. All of the nurses interviewed disposed of needles in the sharps box. Most of them were able to answer correctly the colour of the box and all were of the location of the box in their wards. In the study by Konlan et al [8], 2.8% of nurses disposed of needles in the dustbin instead of the recommended sharps box.

Only very few nurses (3.29%) recapped needles after use. This is much lower than Phukan’s report [12] in which 67% of nurses recapped their needles and Konlan et al’s report [8] in which 38.9% of Nurses recapped needles after use before disposal. WHO guidelines recommend that needles not be re-capped, bent or dissembled, and must always be disposed of in hard plastic safety boxes.

Needlestick injuries are commonly seen in nurses, and a large number of them were aware of the health hazards and diseases spread through these injuries. All the nurses were aware of postexposure prophylaxis. Only 83% of nurses were aware of the proper protocol for filling of sharps boxes. There is a need for more frequent reinforcement of guidelines for sharps disposal.